Dear Mr.Unnamed Ninja,
Originally posted by unnamedninja
Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but having an agenda to disprove literally everything someone says, with believed facts is another thing
I think it's hardly Mr.IgnoreTheFacts' fault that most of what Mr.Lear says does not square with the facts. Do you think if somebody is in favor of
posting verifiable, solid data that does not contradict the facts observable by you, Mr.Ninja
, this constitutes some kind of nefarious agenda?
These are not "believed" fact, I must add. The rotation of the Moon around Earth in roughly 28 days is a fairly solid fact, won't you agree? There
are more subtle but nevertheless proven facts such as nodal regression:
In our day and age, a lot of interesting information is there for asking! If you choose to intentionally ignore it
, you hardly have an argument
against people who don't.
The problem with facts is that they're notoriously difficult to grab ahold of and pin them down for a good looking over, that is why there's
such fierce debate all over ATS.
I disagree with you about the facts being diffiult to grab (also the paragraph above). With a modicum of effort, one can find plenty of info on a
variety of subjects, including such topics as cooling the interior of a spacecraft and keeping the heat balance in check. That's the reason, for
example, why the Soviet "Polyus" craft was painted black (very few instruments on board, hence not a lot of heat and need to use solar energy for
that), and that most other craft have radiators to dump unwanted heat into space. John Lear, however, elected to not avail himself to this info and
created a branch in the thread that hints at a conspiracy surrounding Apollo-13 (astronauts getting cold). Was he lazy? Did he care at all about the
quality of his posts? I don't know.
So the fierce debate, as you describe it, typically goes like that:
A. There is XYZ and that is weird and a conspiracy!
B. But look, Mr.A, there is an explanation for XYZ, which goes like that /insert a law of physics here/ due to these data /insert published data
A. Your "laws of physics" are a product of conspiracy! Your data is false! And you don't know the rest of the facts! And I don't have to prove
anything to you anyway!
One fact i do know, is that nobody here is in possession of all the facts about any of the topics for discussion, so inevitably that leads to
guesswork, if people latch onto John's guesswork, why is that a bad thing?
Again, if you prefer the guesswork, fine. It's just when we are trying to learn something
we need to use something better than guesswork. When
you are flying in an airplane, you sure do hope that the engineers who designed it used strict laws of physics and not some kind of wild guesses.
[edit on 19-11-2007 by buddhasystem]