1. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    16 Sep '05 01:40
    The following is a thought exercise in epistemology.

    Suppose NASA completed a mission to the moon and they reported having observed moon crickets there.

    Is this alone sufficient evidence for you to believe in the existence of moon crickets?

    Would your belief in moon crickets be affected by the consesus among the astronauts? For example, would you be more likely to believe in moon crickets if only one astronaut reported seeing them? How about if there were 6 of the 7 astronauts claiming to have observed them, but giving contradictory accounts of them, such as some claiming that moon crickets are slow and lazy, while others claim that they dart about, running fast and jumping high.

    What other factors would determine how the mission affects your belief in moon crickets?

    Dr. S
  2. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    16 Sep '05 01:571 edit
    I think the real debate is whether my ass is full of moon crickets.
  3. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    16 Sep '05 02:00
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    The following is a thought exercise in epistemology.

    Suppose NASA completed a mission to the moon and they reported having observed moon crickets there.

    Is this alone sufficient evidence for you to believe in the existence of moon crickets?

    Would your belief in moon crickets be affected by the consesus among the astronauts? For example, w ...[text shortened]... hat other factors would determine how the mission affects your belief in moon crickets?

    Dr. S
    It would be helpful to me if some of them were brought back. Of course I would give it more credence if there did not resemble any crickets that we knew about.
  4. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    16 Sep '05 03:541 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    The following is a thought exercise in epistemology.

    Suppose NASA completed a mission to the moon and they reported having observed moon crickets there.

    Is this alone sufficient evidence for you to believe in the existence of moon crickets?

    Would your belief in moon crickets be affected by the consesus among the astronauts? For example, w ...[text shortened]... hat other factors would determine how the mission affects your belief in moon crickets?

    Dr. S
    Is this alone sufficient evidence for you to believe in the existence of moon crickets?

    No. An empirical claim has been made that needs to be tested. Too early to form a “belief” one way or another.

    Would your belief in moon crickets be affected by the consensus among the astronauts?

    Consensus (or lack thereof) re the sightings and description of such creatures is simply an early evidential factor. Noting behavioral observations (slow and lazy or quick and energetic) could be descriptive of several things: different kinds of crickets, crickets in different stages of development, crickets engaged in some activity versus those enjoying a siesta….

    What other factors would determine how the mission affects your belief in moon crickets?

    Repeated confirmed observation and analysis. Goes to Kirk’s point about bringing some back, but there could also be photographs, etc. I suspect that if any of the astronauts claimed to have seen such a thing, there would be immediate attempts at confirmation and observation, taking careful notes of observed behavior, etc. The fact that astronauts are probably trained observers, looking for new phenomena, lends weight to their initial claims, goes to initial credibility.

    I suppose the astronauts would also be subject to careful questioning, psychological tests to see if there could be some possibility of hallucination based on environmental factors (low gravity, say—but there is probably already a pretty good knowledge base there).

    Basically, you go step by step, with progressive evidence of likelihood/unlikelihood.
  5. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    16 Sep '05 03:58
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    The following is a thought exercise in epistemology.

    Suppose NASA completed a mission to the moon and they reported having observed moon crickets there.

    Is this alone sufficient evidence for you to believe in the existence of moon crickets?

    Would your belief in moon crickets be affected by the consesus among the astronauts? For example, w ...[text shortened]... hat other factors would determine how the mission affects your belief in moon crickets?

    Dr. S
    Does the moon wax and wane in response to smiling moon crickets?
  6. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    16 Sep '05 04:46
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    The following is a thought exercise in epistemology.

    Suppose NASA completed a mission to the moon and they reported having observed moon crickets there.

    Is this alone sufficient evidence for you to believe in the existence of moon crickets?

    Would your belief in moon crickets be affected by the consesus among the astronauts? For example, w ...[text shortened]... hat other factors would determine how the mission affects your belief in moon crickets?

    Dr. S
    I'd at least like to know why physical laws do not apply to moon crickets. Without that I'd move to keep NASA scientists away from the rocket fuel. Needless to say I'd be pretty damn incredulous. Kinda like when 3-day-old dead people get up and walk around with gaping holes in their hands, feet, and rib cage.
  7. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    16 Sep '05 05:042 edits
    Originally posted by telerion
    I'd at least like to know why physical laws do not apply to moon crickets. Without that I'd move to keep NASA scientists away from the rocket fuel. Needless to say I'd be pretty damn incredulous. Kinda like when 3-day-old dead people get up and walk around with gaping holes in their hands, feet, and rib cage.
    I didn't take the term "crickets" to necessarily mean anything analogous to living earth crickets--just a name to designate perhaps how their appearance struck the observers: "Hey, those things look like--crickets." They could just as well be mechanical, or a "mirage" for that matter. I don't think you can just dismiss it based on that, or assume some violation of physical laws. Suspension of belief or disbelief, pending investigation. Incredulity? Sure. Immediate dismissal, no. (I think maybe Dr. S. intended the word "belief" to be a loaded term.)

    I don't think that, given Dr. Scribbles' sparse information, we're to the "3-day-old dead people" analogy just yet. Maybe very quickly, but not at the get-go.
  8. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    16 Sep '05 05:11
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    The following is a thought exercise in epistemology.

    Suppose NASA completed a mission to the moon and they reported having observed moon crickets there.

    Is this alone sufficient evidence for you to believe in the existence of moon crickets?

    Would your belief in moon crickets be affected by the consesus among the astronauts? For example, w ...[text shortened]... hat other factors would determine how the mission affects your belief in moon crickets?

    Dr. S
    There are crickets on the moon? Which astronaut confirmed it? I believe moon crickets run fast and jump high. I don't have a single reason to believe that, but gosh darn it, it sounds good and I'm just gonna believe it.
  9. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    16 Sep '05 05:223 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    There are crickets on the moon? Which astronaut confirmed it? I believe moon crickets run fast and jump high. I don't have a single reason to believe that, but gosh darn it, it sounds good and I'm just gonna believe it.
    I think a good analogy for my position at this point is weak (agnostic) atheism: burden of proof is on the claimants/investigators. But if a group of astronauts (not talking snake-handlers, here) claim to have observed something, it should not be investigated? Since Dr. S. put this as an exercise in epsitemology, isn't there an epistemological responsibility factor? It's not quite the same thing as claiming a supernatural vision ("Hey, those cricket-looking things must be angels!" ).
  10. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    16 Sep '05 05:29
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I think a good analogy for my position at this point is weak (agnostic) atheism: burden of proof is on the claimants/investigators. But if a group of astronauts (not snake-handlers) claim to have observed something, it should not be investigated? It's not quite the same thing as claiming a supernatural vision ("Hey, those cricket-looking things must be angels!" ).
    Angels? *guffaw* Who needs stinkin' angels when you've got moon crickets? Sometimes I think yer head ain't screwed on too tight. Besides, astronauts are righteous dudes. They don't be tellin' no lies, man.
  11. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    16 Sep '05 05:332 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Angels? *guffaw* Who needs stinkin' angels when you've got moon crickets? Sometimes I think yer head ain't screwed on too tight. Besides, astronauts are righteous dudes. They don't be tellin' no lies, man.
    I don't think you read my posts. I think you got stuck on that word "crickets," automatically assuming that is more than a descriptive term. I don't think you're showing your usual good sense.
  12. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    16 Sep '05 05:57
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I don't think you read my posts. I think you got stuck on that word "crickets," automatically assuming that is more than a descriptive term. I don't think you're showing your usual good sense.
    Two edits. Not fair.

    You said you was a weak atheist about dem crickets. Well I say begosh and begorra, we got us some crickets and we got us a moon. How dem crickets got to da moon? Jump maybe? So it is written in Aldrin 2:5

    Yea, the crickets did tire of their sojourn upon the earth and verily did lauch themselves into space in a mighty jump, alighting upon the dark side of the moon. The chief cricket gazed serenely upon his surroundings and pronounced it to be good.

    Umm hmm, epistemologically I'd say all the ingredients are in place. Crickets. Check. Moon. Check. We just need a sufficient means of locomotion to conjoin the two. That, brother, is where faith enters the picture.
  13. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    16 Sep '05 06:102 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Two edits. Not fair.

    You said you was a weak atheist about dem crickets. Well I say begosh and begorra, we got us some crickets and we got us a moon. How dem crickets got to da moon? Jump maybe? So it is written in Aldrin 2:5

    Yea, the crickets did tire of their sojourn upon the earth and verily did lauch themselves into space in a mighty jump, ali ...[text shortened]... means of locomotion to conjoin the two. That, brother, is where [i]faith enters the picture.
    Two edits. Not fair.

    [/i]I tried to get them in quicker, but I can't type worth anything tonight.

    Okay, you're humor's well-taken, but are you saying that, given all the caveats listed, that any scientist would not investigate? At least ask the astros, "Why did you call them crickets? You mean like real crickets?" If they say yes, then you know that's outside the bounds of physical possibility. (BTW, the psychological testing of the astronauts was not one of my edits, nor was the hallucination reference.)

    EDIT: Faith has absolutely nothing to do with it.
  14. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    16 Sep '05 06:241 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [b]Two edits. Not fair.

    [/i]I tried to get them in quicker, but I can't type worth anything tonight.

    Okay, you're humor's well-taken, but are you saying that, given all the caveats listed, that any scientist would not investigate? At least ask the astros, "Why did you call them crickets? You mean like real crickets?" If they say yes, then ...[text shortened]... its, nor was the hallucination reference.)

    EDIT: Faith has absolutely nothing to do with it.[/b]
    A real scientist wouldn't worry about some silly crickets and would instead invent a endless mug of beer for me. I mean, after all, Jesus could do it in regards to wine. But as modern science has failed to provide for my deepest spiritual needs, I'm off to bed. Sorry for wasting your time. I promise to behave in the future.

    Two more edits. You are shameless.
  15. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    16 Sep '05 06:28
    Originally posted by rwingett
    A real scientist wouldn't worry about some silly crickets and would instead invent a endless mug of beer for me. I mean, after all, Jesus could do it in regards to wine. But as modern science has failed to provide for my deepest spiritual needs, I'm off to bed. Sorry for wasting your time. I promise to behave in the future.

    Two more edits. You are shameless.
    I promise to behave in the future.

    Not too well, I hope!

    Two more edits. You are shameless.

    I can't believe I didn't get them in before you read any of that!
Back to Top