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??

physicskate

No, no trouble on that front.

Of course, but surely there comes a point where you say that is factual.

I don't have degrees in science. I know gravity exists. I'm happy to be open to the fact that there might be some other force or understanding which changes that but if someone said does gravity exist then my answer is yes.

Is there a chance the moon landings could be false? Maybe a slim one. With the weight of evidence on one side vs some conspiracy theories on the other then yes the moon landings were real.

Prefacing every established fact with 'but it might not be..' doesn't make sense. Otherwise it becomes pseudophilosophy but how do we know anything? (like hipsters who once saw a meme of a misquoted Nietzsche quotation on Tumblr and now think they're very profound)

Maisy:

I do treat most "facts" as facts. I am simply not going to sit here and be told things I know nothing about are "incontrovertible". Very little is incontrovertible. People have the right to question and to continue to question until they are satisfied that something is factual. I don't mediate my understanding of the world through some higher authority that gets to claim something as "fact" and then put it beyond debate.

And "how do we know anything?" isn't pseudophilosophy. It is a profoundly important question.

I know gravity exists. I'm happy to be open to the fact that there might be some other force or understanding which changes that but if someone said does gravity exist then my answer is yes.

Mine too. My feet are on the ground along with yours. That isn't the same, because you and I have personally observed the effects of gravity.

You say: "We mature in our ability to imagine possibilities in and outside our own experiences and to critique their likelihood, and we call that "reason"."
It seems from the other things you say that this imagining of possibilities can never lead to knowledge, only to belief.

It seems like you hold to a strong empiricist account of pure reason. I.e. You can only know what you have directly experienced via your senses. Going back to the heart example, it seems like you set a very high bar. You do not know you have an anatomically normal heart because you cannot see it. I'm assuming you still wouldn't know by taking your pulse. I'm not sure on what grounds you could know since an ecg and a CT scan, etc., by which you could see your heart would have to be interpreted to you by experts.

It seems as though you can only hold a very strong belief that you have a heart and that it is anatomically normal.

So, by your method the things we can know to be true are so few that I'm not even sure what they are.

Also, according to your interpretation of how we acquire reason many are excluded from any conversation about what is true. The views of those with a developmental disability or a young child for example are irrelevant here.

I guess I'm advocating for the existence of what we might call 'impure reason' by which we really can know in a meaningful way that certain things are true without directly experiencing them. That doesn't mean just uncritically taking someone's word for it. It means questioning, listening, conversing, seeking, feeling, imagining, creating, living together and arriving together at settled judgements about the truth of things. (Your model seems very individualistic to me btw). Those settled judgments don't enable us to say that nothing new will ever be found but they do enable us to say that the new thing to be found will not be, for example, in the case of the Holocaust that the event didn't happen at all. It will be a new understanding of or a new facet or meaning of an event we know did happen.

In fact, as you may know, the question of how we know anything was integral to the Enlightenment. Descartes argued [W]e cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt". To many Enlightenment thinkers, the reality of one's own mind is the only incontrovertible fact.

So, by your method the things we can know to be true are so few that I'm not even sure what they are.

Yes.

I don't object in any way to your decision to live according to "impure reason" - that is how we all live, every day.

I just object to being told I am not permitted to reason, should I choose to do so.

I'm not sure on what grounds you could know since an ecg and a CT scan, etc., by which you could see your heart would have to be interpreted to you by experts.

Indeed. I can't know I have a normal heart. I can only believe it. That's okay, though.

Okay. Well Descartes has come in for a fair amount of negative critique but, as you say, it's a philosophical position.

You're entitled to believe it.
You're entitled to say that you don't accept your belief will have moral consequences.

But the moral consequences will happen nonetheless.

You've posted on a public forum that the Holocaust may not have happened. I know Mumsnet isn't the first port of call for young male white nationalists from Virginia but there are plenty of people who hold somewhat softer variations of those views who may well have read what you said and be thinking 'see - it's not unreasonable to think it was a little bit exaggerated' or 'well I think that probably happened but I also think that Jews do go on about it too much'.

So, you hold to your position but it would be great if you would accept some of the potential consequences. I'm perfectly willing to hold my hands up and say that my 'impure' reason can do certain kinds of harm. I don't think it can bolster Holocaust denial though.

Thanks for the chat. I need to spend some time with my family so I think I need to draw this to a close.

Stripy

I didn't say I don't accept my belief will have any moral consequences. I said my belief is what it is, notwithstanding the moral consequences. I can't change what I think.

You've posted on a public forum that the Holocaust may not have happened.

Along with every other reported event in human history, yes. It may not have happened. The chance that it didn't happen is infinitely tiny, but I can't pretend it does not exist without telling lies, and I don't tell lies.

Good evening to you, anyway.

Well done farce for keeping your cool and being polite.

Vitalogy

Thank you.

And "how do we know anything?" isn't pseudophilosophy. It is a profoundly important question.
It is, if engaging in meaningful philosophical debate. Less so when it's a way prefacing basic historical or scientific things.

MaisyPops

I don't see that. The debate is whether there is such a thing as knowledge. You can't hold that debate on a philosophical level whilst corralling "sacred cows", which cannot be questioned because someone said so. That is irrational.

Yes @Thisreallyisafarce. Well done for not insulting my intellect!! Rude, but you're allowed to believe I'm not intelligent or 'able' to understand you argument. It couldn't possibly be that I do understand your argument but vehemently disagree with it. Far better to question my capacity for understanding...

physicskate

I am really not trying to be rude to you. I have just reached the natural limit of trying to explain that you have genuinely misunderstood me.

Again we disagree - I don't believe I haven't understood you or that I am unable to. You believe I am incapable... and thus, impasse. Neither of us can come up with any imperical evidence to contradict each other's belief.

I also believe you haven't fully understood me - and how dangerous some of your beliefs could be in the hands of one with a less adept mind than yourself.

Have we not moved on since the enlightenment?!

I would find it difficult to possess your level of scepticism and reticence to become an expert on everything as you seem to. You also can never be in the wrong because ultimately unless you can be convinced of something that others have accepted as fact, you hold a 'moral' high ground. The most sophisticated and persuasive argument doesn't have to sway you because you choose for it not to, and thus everyone else is 'unable' to understand you, instead of disagree with you!

I'm exhausted just thinking about this ethical/ moral claptrap you're peddling...

physicskate

I'm really sorry, but I think you are talking nonsense. I have tried many times to explain why. If you aren't getting it, you aren't getting it. We're past the point where I think I can make it clear to you.

But here goes... Let's try one more time.

Let's take a "fact" that turned out not to be a fact. WMDs in Iraq will do. At some point, I was told that was a fact. Tony Blair said so. George W Bush said so. A range of experts said so.

But it turned out not to be the case.

Now, according to you, I had no right to an opinion on that. It was a "fact", objectively, verifiably, 100% true, with a probability of 1. A fact.

Can you see that that claim makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Now, you may say, well I don't mean facts like that. I mean true facts.

Right. And who gets to decide which are the true facts? You? Why not me?

Do you see what I am saying now?

Another example: how many planets are there? Ask me in 1991, the answer is 9. That is an established fact. Ask me a year later, the answer is, we don't know.

Facts change.

Thisreallyisafarce
Of course people can debate what knowledge is.

But the OP was about staff who draw conclusions that don't follow from evidence.
I find it surprising when I come across educated people who buy into conspiracy theories. They're absolutely free to discuss and debate but I find it hard to square some beliefs with being an educated person (e.g. reasonable to ask questions about failings in intelligence surrounding 9/11, more conspiracy theory nonsense to be convinced that it was an inside job over oil.)
There is a danger, in my opinion, that once we start saying 'but technically there's a % chance that..' we give credibility to appalling views. Under freedom of speech then as far as I'm concerned awful views should be heard and challenged, but I'm wary of anything which could give anything that those views are acceptable.
(E.g. If someone wanted to hold neo Nazi views then debate and have them challenged all they like, but morally I'd find it hard to say 'technically there is a chance...' because it implicitly lends support to such views).

MaisyPops

And perhaps that is a risk, but I am not going to stand by whilst people chat absolute cant, just because my - perfectly rational - assessment might be used by somebody who, doubtless, is already convinced of their irrational argument. A person who is able to convince themselves that the Holocaust did not happen, based on the currently available evidence, is not operating from a position of reason. My arguments are irrelevant to them, because they have already made up their minds.

WMDs in Iraq were never a fact! There was never ANY sort of independent verification, even when the story broke!

I could tell we were going to war with Iraq (before there was any 'justification') in September 2002 because I was driving to Los Angeles through the Mojave desert and saw a convoy that was at least 5 miles long of army vehicles headed into the desert... you could tell they were going to train for some sort of invasion.

Even at the time it was not a fact because weapons inspectors in January 2003 concluded there couldn't be sure there were or were not WMDs in Iraq. But in March 2003 we all went to war anyway... There were beliefs, but very very few facts.

Would you have to say absolute can't?
I find people who buy into moon landings are a hoax to be conspiracy theorists. Sir there is a tiny chance it wasn't as it seems, but realistically it is such a small chance it's not really worth paying much attention given the weight of evidence otherwise.
It wouldn't cross my mind to say 'well they maybe were faked'. It doesnt follow logically.
If someone had credible evidence otherwise then it might eb worth considering.

My arguments are irrelevant to them, because they have already made up their minds.

But so have you - you've said previously that you are aware facts are available but you won't research them yourself and thus remain in some untouchable grey area saying, 'well we can't be sure.' even when more evidence is freely available. You aren't willing to become an expert on anything and yet you dispute everything (and fairly convincingly, I should add). So even though you are capable of understanding and rationalising facts, you simply refuse to do so and look down upon those who have turned 'belief' into 'fact'.