Philosophy Now Forum

I believe we the human race have not yet been to the moon. The mirror on the moon left by Buzz and co is a wonderful thing to indicate that we did. Can we here discuss this and prove with our words whether a mirror is on the moon or not? Can words help us to know the truth for real about this very important thing.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... er-funding

Pluto wrote:I believe we the human race have not yet been to the moon. The mirror on the moon left by Buzz and co is a wonderful thing to indicate that we did. Can we here discuss this and prove with our words whether a mirror is on the moon or not? Can words help us to know the truth for real about this very important thing.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... er-funding

The Moon will continue to move away from the Earth whether we measure it or not. Now that we know the rate of change scientists can continue to make the calculations and run the experiments. If some scientific organization wants to recheck the distance to the Moon, the mirrors are there. A discussion of of the existence of the mirrors is rather pointless, really.

Pluto wrote:I believe we the human race have not yet been to the moon. The mirror on the moon left by Buzz and co is a wonderful thing to indicate that we did. Can we here discuss this and prove with our words whether a mirror is on the moon or not? Can words help us to know the truth for real about this very important thing.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... er-funding

Yes, it is possible to know. Unless of course scientists have worked out how to reflect laser light of rocks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

That would indeed show the Soviets.

Come on man if Russia the best spy network in history and the ability we presume to tell if people are lying are still fooled. It's idiotic all this stuff.

A discussion of of the existence of the mirrors is rather pointless, really.

I get the feeling we could/can not get to the moon so have left no mirror(s). From experiencing data, such as film, text, pictures, etc on the subject I've come away thinking and feeling no-one's been. What can you say to make me believe?

Maybe it's pointless from the fact that it is the outcome or impact of the idea upon those on earth that is really the thing. Whether we actually went is beside the point, the idea is to plant that we did in those minds, and this would be enough. It would be real for us.

Yes, rocks don't tend to reflect much do they. But what is the data on this idea of shooting lasers at mirrors, is it not itself a creative piece of art-like theatrics? A kind of advertisement.

To what the writer Milan Kundera so eloquently referred to as "the beautifying lie."

Maybe the data that they collected is enough.

Pluto wrote: What can you say to make me believe?

Comedy. It was used in ancient therapy to show people a mockery of themselves so they could wise up to their own behavoirs.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Pluto wrote: What can you say to make me believe?

Comedy. It was used in ancient therapy to show people a mockery of themselves so they could wise up to their own behavoirs.

Yes, but today, it's not 'wise up', but 'dumb down.'

Pluto wrote:
Yes, rocks don't tend to reflect much do they. But what is the data on this idea of shooting lasers at mirrors, is it not itself a creative piece of art-like theatrics? A kind of advertisement.

That would depend if you are actually shooting lasers at mirrors.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, is someone shooting lasers at mirrors, if so what does the data surrounding the action look like. But that would be made to confirm not deny so maybe no point in looking at it.

Pluto wrote:Yes, that's what I'm saying, are they shooting lasers at mirrors, if so what does the data surrounding the action look like.

If you can google the relevant data and examine it you can probably drawn your own conclusions as to the authenticity. Failing that you could examine peer review papers and then draw your own conclusions.

Exactly, but then I'd come out of it more confused (indoctrinated) and simply let it go. The art of rhetoric itself would become truth.

Pluto wrote:Exactly, but then I'd come out of it more confused (indoctrinated) and simply let it go. The art of rhetoric would overpower the truth.

In this particular case the "truth" is supported by observations and mathematics. Are you postulating some type of "higher truth" that denies the possibility that ten or so humans have (supposedly) walked upon the moon? Surely, one of them would have dropped a mirror.

Ginkgo wrote:

Pluto wrote:Exactly, but then I'd come out of it more confused (indoctrinated) and simply let it go. The art of rhetoric would overpower the truth.

In this particular case the "truth" is supported by observations and mathematics. Are you postulating some type of "higher truth" that denies the possibility that ten or so humans have (supposedly) walked upon the moon? Surely, one of them would have dropped a mirror.

I think I'm saying that those observations and mathematics are a type of persuasion. And can be used to say anything. A higher truth would be something like a gut-feeling? Not a nice couple of words. Instinct, maybe. What do you mean by 'a higher truth' actually?

Pluto wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Pluto wrote:Exactly, but then I'd come out of it more confused (indoctrinated) and simply let it go. The art of rhetoric would overpower the truth.

In this particular case the "truth" is supported by observations and mathematics. Are you postulating some type of "higher truth" that denies the possibility that ten or so humans have (supposedly) walked upon the moon? Surely, one of them would have dropped a mirror.

I think I'm saying that those observations and mathematics are a type of persuasion. And can be used to say anything. A higher truth would be something like a gut-feeling? Not a nice couple of words. Instinct, maybe. What do you mean by 'a higher truth' actually?

Your definition of a "higher truth" is spot on. We see it all of the time in these types of forums. This type of "higher truth" is used a bulwark again scientific conventionalism. Science cannot know the higher truth... except of course when someone decides to articulate this truth.

Science doesn't provide answers to "higher truths". The fallacy with this type of thinking is that if science cannot prove the whole truth it cannot provide truth of the part. Actually, it can. You have it in the form of a moon landing, or six.

P.S, I did google it to find out the number of moon landings.