Paul Matthews writes:
Ruth Dixon and Jonathan Jones have had a comment published in Psychological Science criticising the LOG ‘Moon hoax’ paper (Psych Science) and LGO ‘Role of Conspiracist Ideation’ (PlosOne)
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/03/26/0956797614566469.full
“Reanalysis of the survey data sets of Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac (2013) and Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer (2013) indicates that the conclusions of those articles—that conspiracist ideation predicts skepticism regarding the reality of anthropogenic climate change—are not supported by the data”.
As we all know, all you really need to do to show their claims are bogus is to plot their data, which is what D&J do in Fig 1 for LGO (for LOG, it’s in the supplementary information file).
The paper clearly suffered a bit from being edited down to 1000 words.
There’s more at Ruth’s blog on their findings
https://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/commentary-in-psychological-science/
She writes:
Although Lewandowsky and colleagues were sent our Commentary to review in late 2014, Eric Eich, the editor of Psychological Science, did not agree with their opinion that our paper should be rejected. Their (non-anonymous) review made much the same points as their Reply which is published alongside our Commentary.
When accepting our paper, Eric Eich placed an embargo on all discussion until the Commentary and Reply were published.
and on the timeline and struggle they had to get it published
https://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/commentary-timeline/
There’s also a post at BH
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/27/lew-paper-shredded.html
Prof Lewandowsky in his blog reply to Dixon & Jones admits to certain effects being small, but then says that even effects that explain less than 5% of variance can be non-trivial when expanded to global scale. For examples, he uses combat fatigue and the alleged link between exposure to Pb, lead, and the IQ of some exposed people. I shall deal only with lead. I was friendly with Dr Allen Christopheres and Pam da Silva, who were Australian scientists in occupational health, studying lead for some 30 years or more and recognised internationally as respectible and learned about Pb toxicity. The early work was on ingestion, hand to mouth, as in children eating soil or flaking paint with high Pb. However, estimates of the total weight of ingested material varied over 2 orders of magnitude as Pam noted in peer reviewed publication, so belief that Pb was a subtle poison was burned into the brains of some researchers based on false impressions of dose. Allen & Pam posed the reverse causation hypothesis, that children who had lower intelligence naturally, were more likely to ingest paint, soil, etc.
The reverse causation hypothesis was treated much the same way as global warming scepticism is being: treated today. A group of scientists headed by Dr Needleman developed an increasingly complex set of experiments on the forward hypothesis only, becoming similar to the IPCC. Argument from well-funded authority was used to convince legislators to demonise Pb, to have it removed from petrol, reduced the efficiency of petrol in cars at a huge social cost.
So far as I have researched, I cannot find that reverse causation has been busted.
For this thread, the conclusion is that an experimental variable that explains a tiny part of the variance might best be ignored.
It is not practical to prove everything to yourself.
“Choose carefully who you believe, and be prepared to change your mind.” – SW
It is a good point though… what evidence do YOU consider sufficient to convince you of a given fact? That’s a totally subjective thing.
Conspiracists ultimately can’t be convinced… no evidence is sufficient to make them change their mind.
Skeptics (in a general sense) want strong proof of something.
The gullible will accept anyone’s say-so. The appeal-to-authority argument is designed to sway the gullible and the lazy who can’t be bothered to investigate themselves.
The latter part of that is crucial I think. All of these scientific organizations that are endorsing CAGW are basically doing so off of the say-so of experts. They themselves would acknowledge that they’re not experts in this particular field, and they can’t be bothered to become experts, but if another expert says that it’s so, then it must be.
In summary, scientists seem to be MORE likely to accept testimony from other scientists as sufficient proof to convince them, than the general public, even if they have the same level of knowledge. Basically, it’s a matter of faith that other scientists are doing good science and therefore there’s no reason to question their analysis.
General observation:
Moon landings? Although they weren’t faked, it wouldn’t matter if they were. The fact is that we have all of the technology developed in order to perform a moon landing (and safe return), while we didn’t prior to 1969.
All of the computer tech, rocketry tech, guidance, materials, etc. that were developed during the incredibly productive (and shockingly analog) 1960s were created for Apollo, and are STILL paying dividends. Nobody can honestly say that the investment in technology was wasted, even if the underlying motive was improved ICBM technology and bragging rights.
Remember, we’re still right this second using technology that was developed in that era, flying on aircraft that were developed in that era, using fuel formulations, modern transistors (they existed before, but had to be dramatically improved to handle launches), integrated circuits (silicon wafers), television format, satellites… almost everything in modern society either was created during the 1960s, perfected during the 1960s, or derived from technology created during the 1960s. Heck, even I was created during the 1960s.
I’m an engineer, and I spent a lot of time reading all the Moon Hoax stuff some years back. I came to what I call a 55% doubt. In other words, if you could put numbers on belief and skepticism, I believe 45%, I doubt it 55%. And here is why.
The moon’s gravity is 1/6th that of earth. When the astronauts jumped, did they go six times as high? Their suit and pack weighed 78 pounds (earth). How high could an astronaut jump on earth with a 78 lb pack? Maybe 1.5 feet? On the moon that would be 9 feet high. I didn’t see anyone jump any higher than they could on earth. It would take 6 X as long for any falling object, like dirt thrown up from the Rover’s wheels, to fall back to the surface. Falling objects would fall in extreme slow motion. 1/6th speed is very noticeable. Even more interesting is that a vehicle depends on gravity for it’s ability to turn. Side and acceleration loads are developed by wheels held against the surface by weight. With 1/6th the weight, the Rover would not have been capable of maneuvering like on earth, it would have been like driving on snow especially with the loose lunar surface.
All that Hoax stuff about photos, flags, backgrounds, shadows, etc.is pretty non specific. Gravity and its effects are absolute and very predictable. I would suggest spending some time thinking about that, maybe do a few calculations on what would occur (like when Armstrong jumps off the ladder) and then watch some of the videos again. With an editing program you can slow video down and get an exact frame count and exact time for something to fall. Estimate the height and see if it is right. It’s an eye opener.
Aerodawg,
Have you noticed that movies filmed during the silent film days usually have people walking extremely fast when viewed using more modern technology? Are you sure the effects you describe (rate of fall calculated frame by frame) are not artifacts due to changes in video recording and playback technology? Did the conversion and copying processes used to format the video you examined preserve the individual frames, with original timing, sufficiently to enable accurate timing judgments of change in falling rates per frame? The total time for Neil to drop to the surface from the ladder was just over 1 second. How high off the ground would you have to be to take over 1 second to drop to the ground on Earth? Answer: over 16 feet!
As for the height people can jump – 1.5 feet (body, not feet) is high for an adult when not wearing a 78 lb. backpack, even with maximum effort. Bottom rung on LEM ladder was Approx. 2.5 feet (struts did not get compressed as far as expected). Try hopping up to a step that high on Earth, even without a backpack.
Also, Why would astronauts exert their maximum on every step? And, their efforts were directed laterally, not vertically. They certainly appeared to me to be flitting around much more light-footedly than would be possible on Earth, especially considering the load they were bearing. Did you see the incident where one astronaut fell on his face? He regained his feet merely by means of pushing against the ground with his hands. Imagine the possibility of doing that on Earth. Do you know anyone who can do a push-up so vigorously that they coast up on to their feet, even not wearing a 78 lb. pack?
Methinks you are judging the astronauts’ movements subjectively.
SR
I didn’t see anyone jump any higher than they could on earth.
I didn’t see anyone TRYING to jump higher than they could on earth.
Mike,
Right at the beginning of this video, it sure looks like an Astronaut trying. But maybe he wasn’t trying very hard. LOL
for what it is worth….. In my real life I know only one person who has told me the moon landings were faked and he also believes global warming might kill us all.