You merely don’t like my answers. You want me to take a stance one way or the other. Indeed, you seem to have made it a zealous crusade. I won’t do that because I am undecided. Here’s a hint. Thinking that I am debating at all is the first mistake. I have never debated anything on this or any other thread on your blog. You posted my opinion, not me … remember? I merely clarified your misrepresentation of my stance on the subject of moon landings and then defended my right to be skeptically neutral. Come on, this is all repetition now (assuming you have been reading along).

Here’s another hint. I hover in between because “IN ADDITION TO FACTS”, which I most certainly trust, right up there with unbiased rationality, I also trust my unbiased gut, however irrational.

“Your gut? What do you mean gut? Could you elaborate on that please?”

Sure.

I also trust my personal sliding scale of believability (which is different for each person, but not always unbiased).

That will either sound like utter nonsense to you or make complete sense. You decide. I’m thinking I know which. Surprise me.

Here’s a question for you my friend. What would it take for you to accept that I am “currently” neither a Moon Hoaxer nor a Moon Believer? Figure that out, and we will have reached an accord on this matter (and perhaps many others).

As for Geisel’s question, it has been answered multiple times now. If you don’t like the answers provided, I suspect you never will. :)

As for facts in general? Hmm. Whichever one makes the loudest “crunch” sound when it hits the ground. (Alternatively, whichever one produces the biggest explosion.) You know, the Mythbuster way. :p

You may not be aligned with a camp that says MOON LANDING = FACT nor MOON HOAX = FACT;

But what facts do you accept, what do you not accept, and why? Like Chris says, you may not accept a fact but it exists all the same (I.E. Africa exists).

I am the fourth person to ask Geisel’s question, but I’ll ask in a broader sense, what would it take to convince you of [a given fact]?

Of course this thread is so old now you may not find the question, and that’s okay.

Matthew Broderick, why didn’t I listen…?

I blame Sam Waterson and his neck-wattle.

Since I listed my reasons (10 or so posts ago), when have people replied with “information” that contests my facts/doubts/issues? They’ve replied with their own opinions. Which is fine. I’m not debating my opinion. I’m defending my ability to have a “skeptically neutral” stance. Moreover, I’m not sure how much more I can illuminate what it means to be “skeptically neutral”. It’s skeptical and it’s neutral, in that I am not yet convinced one way or the other. It really shouldn’t need any more explanation than that.

And this kind of ties back into what Sid said in his first post. It’s in our nature to fight, and sometimes the facts are secondary to this nature, even if it’s on a lame blog comments. As thinking responsible human beings I believe it is our duty to push pass instincts that are detrimental to a healthy society. These instincts worked fine when we were a bunch of small tribes vying for the finest mates in the group, but we are a much larger community thanks to the technology we’ve developed, and we can now literally destroy the planet thanks to this fact, so it’s in our best interests to try to develop our social skills apace. (Note: I’m speaking generally)

It was never my goal to anger or bait anyone. That is a fact. I was baited by Toren, and I did bite, but only to clarify my “actual” stance. I would so again if I felt misrepresented, which is where this all began for me.

I’m sorry if my take on the moon landings makes you feel angry and baited, but like me, you have to take responsibility for yourself. I have at no point hidden my skeptically neutral stance in these posts. I made it obvious. You bit into something that never really existed, a debate in which I was never participating. That’s your miscalculation, not mine. Doing so betrays more about your need to incite debate than my deeply held convictions on these matters.

As for the article … that just showed up in the last 24 hours. I wasn’t saving it up or waiting for a big “reveal”. It was topical and so I posted a link. Seriously, don’t read between the lines so much. From what I can tell, it’s not a strength.

I am guessing you hide, willfully or not, simply just a desire to bait and anger people rather than pursue serious inquiry.

Your joyous intimations about the questionability of the US Space program in your last post pretty much points to that fact.

I think your stance lacks deep conviction and betrays only enmity.

If that is an ad hominem attack, so be it.