This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Two equally bad fallacies

Frying Pantheist's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Frying Pantheist

One thing that always annoyings me is when people are arguing for creationism, conspiracies or any other kind of "the official explanation is a lie" woo, they always seem to have this idea that whatever they are arguing for is somehow the default answer. So if they can come up with a problem that the person they're arguing with can't explain, or even something that just seems odd, then not only does this rule out the official explanation but whatever they are arguing for must be true, even if it does no better at explaining whatever it is they were talking about.

People who say the Moon landings were a hoax tend to be extremely bad for this. For example there is one argument about the plus sign-shaped markings on the footage. These were actually on the camera lens and should show up in every shot, but sometimes the astronauts can be seen walking in front of them - you can't explain that! Well, first of all, we can explain it - the white space suits showed up brightly in the pictures and make it hard to see the crosshairs - but suppose we couldn't explain it, what is your explanation? Were the crosshairs painted on the back of the set? Were the astronauts digitally added using a 1960's version of Photoshop? No explanation will ever be given, just the fact that it looks a bit strange is enough to clearly support the argument that it was all shot on a sound stage.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:20:57 UTC | #913097