Crackpots and the Nature of Truth

December 24, 2002 9:03 AM

Crackpots and the Nature of Truth If you're a busy guy like me, you take on faith a lot what is promoted as scientific truth. But there's usually a "crackpot" minority who may find a few data points which don't fit the orthodox scientific theory and claim them as evidence of a conspiracy or mass delusion. On very rare occasions (and this is probably NOT one of them), they may even turn out to be right. For this reason, the unaligned unscientific masses find it easy to side with the crackpots. Those within the orthodoxy often take the position that confronting the minority in a fair and open debate would unduly dignify the minority's position. Unfortunately, the orthodoxy at the same time often loudly denounces the minority's position as "unscientific," but doesn't go much beyond that. To be sure, the minority's position often is truly "unscientific" because, for instance, it's unfalsifiable. The orthodoxy seems to be missing golden PR opportunities in articles like this. If the orthodoxy is truly concerned about winning converts away from the crackpots, shouldn't they AT LEAST take advantage of these opportunities to say a few words about what science is and is not, to inject some of the basic concepts of science (hypothesis, experimentation, theory construction, falsifiability, etc.) into the popular memesphere?
posted by ZenMasterThis (28 comments total)

Uh, Zen, couldn't you have just said "NASA thinks it's not worth trying to refute crackpots, others disagree, discuss"? (And "the orthodoxy" is a new one on me; do they have a headquarters on the Mall?)
posted by languagehat at 9:09 AM on December 24, 2002

lang, I would've made it shorter, but I ran out of time.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:11 AM on December 24, 2002

I'll always side with those favoring public debate over ignoring those who spread ignorance; I'm stunned that the scientists at NASA don't feel the same way. Or perhaps they do, and it's the bureaucrats at NASA who are killing this opportunity to engage the 'moon hoax' argument directly?

I would've made it shorter, but I ran out of time.

I think a good general rule, ZMT, is to leave discussion for the thread, not the front page. Another one is to include an email address so folks can say things like this without derailing that discussion. ;)
posted by mediareport at 9:27 AM on December 24, 2002

You know, it never fails to amuse me that moon hoax theorists seem to think an elaborate ruse is needed to create a moon landing, but they have no problem accepting that a WEAPON WITH THE POWER OF THE SUN exists. If we're going from the viewpoint of ease of science, which sounds more outlandish?
posted by solistrato at 9:29 AM on December 24, 2002

It's mentioned in the article, and I still think Phil Plait has the best, most reasonable, and most "scientific" responses to this rather goofy argument (here). Have a look if you haven't already.
posted by Samsonov14 at 9:46 AM on December 24, 2002

The article clearly states that NASA did consider it worthwhile to refute the crackpots. "So a few months ago, the space agency budgeted $15,000 to hire a former rocket scientist and author to produce a small book refuting the disbelievers' claims." And presumably the bureaucrats are the ones who make up budgets.

Here's an interesting refutation of the "fake moon landing" theory from rival conspiracy theorists with their own crackpot theory.

Then there's Buzz Aldrin's refutation.
posted by Daze at 9:53 AM on December 24, 2002

I really intended this thread to be a general discussion on how and why scientists miss great opportunities to inject basic science concepts into popular discussions, not about this specific hoax. Oh well.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:08 AM on December 24, 2002

"shouldn't they AT LEAST take advantage of these opportunities to say a few words about what science is and is not, to inject some of the basic concepts of science (hypothesis, experimentation, theory construction, falsifiability, etc.) into the popular memesphere?"

Yes they should! I'm often dismayed by scientist's lack of balls when it comes to getting dirt under their fingernails. If more scientists would just reinforce the ideas of the scientific method during interviews it would go along away toward reinforcing common sense in the general populace. At the same time it doesn't help that science is often undermined in our (US) public schools and even when the experts do speak up their are often edited to a sideline by reporters and editors who push the envelope of kooky pseudoscience in order to sell papers.
posted by wfrgms at 10:16 AM on December 24, 2002

That's more like it...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:18 AM on December 24, 2002

saw this yesterday on Google News...
posted by y2karl at 10:21 AM on December 24, 2002

The article clearly states that NASA did consider it worthwhile to refute the crackpots.

Actually, the article quotes the head of NASA saying that "trying to do a targeted response to this is just lending credibility to something that is, on its face, asinine." It also quotes a NASA historian saying "you'll probably just make it worse by giving it any official attention." So, let me get this straight: "Responding to ignorance" is now outside the purview of a science organization? That's absurdly stupid.

NASA's ridiculous view that it's *not* worthwhile to refute crackpots is the only embarrassment here. Meanwhile, awareness of the hoax theory is out there and growing, especially, I bet, among young people.

Thanks for the pointer to Plait, Samsonov14; I agree he's got one of the best rebuttals. Here's the Nov. 7th thread with lots of other good links. So, why can't NASA just point people to Phil Plait's site (or any of the other good ones) and be done with it?
posted by mediareport at 10:23 AM on December 24, 2002

Phil Plait is a god. Last year, I had to go down to my son's elementary school, walk into his teacher's classroom, and surf one of the internet boxen to Phil's site, just so she would stop telling them about balancing an egg on the spring equinox.

This was after holding a discussion with her over the phone in which she called me the crackpot. I still don't think she's convinced, due to her general suspicion of anything found over the internet.

For a while there, my head wouldn't kick out of *boggle* mode.
posted by thanotopsis at 10:40 AM on December 24, 2002

I have to say, until recently, I could understand NASA's point in just ignoring the crackpots. That was, until one such crackpot became my coworker recently. It amazes me how this guy, a college educated software developer, believes all conspiracy theories at face value. He seems normal in other aspects of his life (that I've seen), but the part of his brain that deals with critical thinking seems to be impaired.

He has presented several conspiracy theories to me and other coworkers, and always with the phrase, "You probably don't know about this. It's gonna change your life to find it out." He sincerely believes that just by reading what he gives us, we're gonna believe it like he does.

Several times now, I've responded to him with my critical thoughts on the conspiracy issue at hand, and he also seems to accept that, too. It's really weird. For people like him, it might be a really good idea for reputable refutations to be available.
posted by tippiedog at 10:53 AM on December 24, 2002

[obligatory defence of NASA]

So, let me get this straight: "Responding to ignorance" is now outside the purview of a science organization? That's absurdly stupid.

Clearly, science education is within NASA's purview, but responding to and refuting specific crackpot theories (and spending taxpayer dollars, don't forget, to do so) isn't education, it's public relations. IMHO, spending $15,000 on a book to refute moon landing conspiracy theorists is asinine, because A) they aren't going to convince the crackpots, B) people smart enough not to be taken in by the crackpots don't need it, and C) people not smart enough not to be taken in won't understand the authentic explanations anyway. Why waste the time and money?
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:01 AM on December 24, 2002

there doesn't seem much point in flatly refuting people - why should they accept nasa's word rather than anyone else's? instead, you need to educate people so that they can think critically for themselves - teach them to ask the right questions. that's what plait's site tries to do, and that's why it's so good. it's not easy though, and that's why you don't see it often, i suspect.

certainly, from an ex-astronomer's pov, it when you're faced with a someone making claims like this, the task seems overwhelming - where do you start in trying to make someone really think?

(so claims that nasa and/or astronomers and/or scientists aren't "doing their bit" are misleading - it's not that simple).
posted by andrew cooke at 11:02 AM on December 24, 2002

where do you start in trying to make someone really think?

Perhaps by injecting unfamiliar words like "falsifiable," "hypothesis," and "theory" into the discussion, thereby perhaps sparking some intellectual curiosity among the less dim folks?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:11 AM on December 24, 2002

In the words of Friedrich Von Schiller, "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."

There are always going to be a horde of people out there who devoutly believe in any foolishness set before them - faked moon landing, magnetic bracelets, John Edward, crystal healing, etc. ad nauseam. P. T. Barnum was far too conservative in his estimate that a sucker is born every minute.

Still, it is comforting to know that there are folks like Phil Plait who continue to try to hold back the tide of ignorance. Another noble fighter on this front is James Randi.

Personally, I am pretty eager to catch the new Penn and Teller series Bullshit! on Showtime this January.
posted by John Smallberries at 11:17 AM on December 24, 2002

responding to and refuting specific crackpot theories (and spending taxpayer dollars, don't forget, to do so) isn't education, it's public relations.

And we all know NASA never engages in public relations. ;)

I do see your point, but think that for memes (like the scientific method) to survive in the marketplace of ideas they *do* need public relations. NASA went wrong by deciding to publish its own book, since there are excellent, scientifically rigorous eviscerations of the hoax arguments already online. It would take almost *zero* time or resources to, say, put a link to Plait's site up at nasa.gov, perhaps along with a note like this:

"NASA scientists have seen the Fox Television show, 'Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'. NASA would like to clearly state that claims the Apollo moon landing was a hoax are based on a combination of ignorance, distortion of evidence and obviously faulty logic. In short, such claims are ridiculous. Thoughtful scientists across the globe have rebutted these claims. Phil Plait's excellent discussion here is a fine place to start, if you'd like to learn the truth."

There. How much time and effort does that take? But simply dismissing the arguments with a wave of the hand and the "this is so unworthy of discussion" crap is not only wrong, it's strategically stupid. Science organizations can't abdicate their responsibility to teach. Not if they want good science to survive in the population, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 11:52 AM on December 24, 2002

The crackpots cannot be reasoned with because they suffer from paranoia - which is virtually untreatable. Information will not help paranoid people, nor will shrinks, nor will drugs, because paranoid people genuinely believe the world is out to get them, and will sternly resist treatment, will stop taking medicines, will not go to shrinks, and will do everything in their power to make sure they are not getting treated for their illnesses. Information will not help the paranoid, because they believe it to be lies.
posted by Veritron at 12:31 PM on December 24, 2002

I really intended this thread to be a general discussion on how and why scientists miss great opportunities to inject basic science concepts into popular discussions, not about this specific hoax. Oh well.

Then find a link about that, instead of using another one as a jumping off point for a discussion you'd like to have. Case closed.
posted by The God Complex at 1:09 PM on December 24, 2002

Veritron, not all people who believe crackpot theories are paranoid. Many of them have just heard one side of the story (the crackpot side), and because their critical thinking skills are underdeveloped, or because their knowledge base wasn't extensive enough to debunk it themselves, or because the crackpot theory was presented so well, they bought it. Many people who believe crackpot theories can be reasoned with, and many are fully capable of changing their minds when presented with more information. Belief in a crackpot theory doesn't always mean you're crazy or paranoid, it often just means you don't yet know enough to think differently.
posted by biscotti at 1:12 PM on December 24, 2002

It would take almost *zero* time or resources to, say, put a link to Plait's site up at nasa.gov, perhaps along with a note

I certainly agree with that, I just didn't agree with the point of view that NASA was responsible for educating every knothead in the world.

Anyway, I don't see what the danger is. Are the kooks poised to take over the world? Kooks have a louder voice nowadays, thanks to the internet, there's just as much factual information on the internet as there is kook information, and there are plenty of anti-kooks willing to debunk for free. NASA and other scientists doing real-world research can just post a link and move on.
posted by RylandDotNet at 2:01 PM on December 24, 2002

AndrewCooke - "there doesn't seem much point in flatly refuting people - why should they accept nasa's word rather than anyone else's? instead, you need to educate people so that they can think critically for themselves" Yes!

By the way, a considerable percentage of the American public believes that Global Warming is a hoax.
posted by troutfishing at 3:35 PM on December 24, 2002

Okay, I was the guy who posted the link to Phil Plait, but those that I consider crackpots have their own science. Check out Answersingenesis for some decent answers to our worldviews. Some of it is crap, but they've got some good stuff there. I think they're wrong, but it's good to see the other side well represented.
posted by Samsonov14 at 3:51 PM on December 24, 2002

'Crackpot' is such a value judgement. Why label someone asinine just because they attempt to construct a refutation of an event that most people take for granted without question? Just because the Moon Hoax debate employs some specious arguments, that doesn't mean you have to dub everyone who becomes intrigued by it as crackpots.
In my humblest of humble opinions, anyone, fruitcake or not, who challenges accepted paradigms has more going for him than those who simply sneer and thank their lucky stars they weren't born one of the 'weirdos'. All of our worldviews are, in the last analysis, corrigible, incomplete and flawed. Debate these things - great. But don't castigate those who challenge the status quo in the first place.
posted by RokkitNite at 5:58 PM on December 24, 2002

RokkitNite - Clap clap...a Jimmy Stewart speech on belief systems. I'll vote for you. (no snarkiness intended)
posted by troutfishing at 9:41 PM on December 24, 2002

Wasn't Christopher Columbus once considered a Crackpot?
posted by SweetIceT at 10:08 PM on December 24, 2002

Check out Answersingenesis for some decent answers to our worldviews. Some of it is crap, but they've got some good stuff there.

"Decent answers"? "Good stuff"? What the fuck? The following hardly counts as a "decent answer" to anything:

The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.

Oh, yes, fine "stuff" indeed, Samsonov14.

Just because fundamentalist creationists couch their illogical nonsense in polite terms doesn't make it worth a shit. These aren't 'decent answers'; they're complete idiocy masquerading as science. I'm stunned you think otherwise. The 'other side' is hardly 'well represented' at that site; instead, it's revealed quite clearly as anti-logical garbage.
posted by mediareport at 1:46 AM on December 25, 2002