Teachers: do you believe the moon landings were a hoax?

[noblegiraffe]

I was just on Teacher Tapp and found the results from this poll pretty horrifying: 15% of teachers polled don’t disagree with the statement “I believe the moon landings from 1969 to 1972 were actually a hoax”.

What now? Nearly 1 in 6 of us??

Oh but the coin could land on its edge!

The response to which is ‘go away, flip a coin a million times then come back and tell me how many times it happened’.

The eagle had landed?

Or did it.....??????!!!!!!

The eagle landing would resolve two questions in one go.

noblegiraffe

But they are not wrong, Noble. You are simplifying the concept for them, for good reason, but the child who questions it isn't incorrect. I hope you don't speak to them in the way in which you have spoken to me.

0.00001 is not 1 in 10 million, it's 1 in 100,000. Pretty simple maths that. Did you pass that physics A level?

You’re one step away from ‘I hope you don’t teach my children’ aren’t you...

*Or did it.....??????!!!!!!

The eagle landing would resolve two questions in one go. grin*

noblegiraffe

No. I'm sure you are an effective Maths teacher. Just stay away from critical thinking.

CountFosco

I did, actually. But this isn't a Maths discussion (I am undoubtedly and happily outgunned in that regard). This is a discussion about logic, and it is seriously wanting in some participants.

CountFosco

But to be fair to me, I forgot my %.

Logic is maths. As is probability. And unless you have very large sample sizes then you can't accurately predict the difference between 1 in 10 million vs 1 in 10 billion. It's a meaningless question when asking about matrix vs ML.

CountFosco

I don't think it is meaningless. I am not really asking Noble to calculate probabilities here; I know that can't be done. I am simply asking her to admit that it is impossible to state with certainty - as she has done - that the probability of the two events we are talking about is the same. Being open-minded, I don't need to prove they are different. If anyone wants to be definitive about it, however, they need to be definitive, rather than just spouting their impressions as verifiable facts.

I don't accept things just because I am told they are true by so-called "experts".

There’s a suggestion here that people are sure the moon landings happened because they blithely believe what they are told by so-called experts, whereas thisis evaluates the evidence for things herself and decides what’s true and hasn’t got around to the moon landings yet.

that the probability of the two events we are talking about is the same

No, both being negligible isn’t the same as both being the same.

noblegiraffe

Well, I haven't. Not sure what is wrong with that?

But you’re implying that others who have an opinion are believing so-called experts.

noblegiraffe

But how negligible? Do you think they're similarly negligible, or that one is far more so than the other? Because you were saying - earlier - that the ML was a certainty. Now you are saying the possibility of it being faked is negligible. But do you still insist it is similar to the chances of you not being really here?

noblegiraffe

I am implying that someone telling me something because they were told by "experts" is the same as "so-called experts", i.e. people who are called experts.

No, both being negligible isn’t the same as both being the same.

Finally - progress. So, it isn't the same as someone saying 6x + 2 = 8 means x = 2? It is different to that? Because that is a mathematical impossibility?

Farce

I was going to quote your ‘so-called experts’ comment because it plainly shows you do reflexively reject expert opinion. But it’s been done already.

So, it isn't the same as someone saying 6x + 2 = 8 means x = 2? It is different to that? Because that is a mathematical impossibility?

That probably depends on your type of maths...
When we say there are 180 degrees in a triangle, we don’t say ‘assuming Euclidean geometry’.

We discount negligible probabilities all the time because otherwise our minds would be so open our brains would fall out.

Ruffina

It does not.

Seriously, how are you not getting this? I didn't say I disbelieve information I am given by experts. I didn't even say I disbelieve information that is given to me second-hand, by people who were told by experts (and who tell me this - hence "so-called"). What I said was that I don't believe it automatically.

That isn't the same.

by people who were told by experts

Ah, there we have it. The assumption that no one else critically evaluates the evidence like Thisis does.

noblegiraffe

Speak for yourself.

But as I have said, I don't go about behaving as though there are no certainties and therefore no best courses of action. I don't spend my time in states of acute inertia because I don't know X. I just live with the knowledge that I don't know, and act on the balance of probabilities.

act on the balance of probabilities.

This sounds awfully like discounting the negligible ones.

noblegiraffe

That is categorically not the implication. Anybody can say they read X, or heard X, and that X was related to them by an "expert". Unless I know that for myself, I am not going to accept it uncritically. That doesn't mean I reject it.

Again, I am not sure how you are not understanding this.