Conspiracy Theories: Moon Landings | Cracked.com

The post makes a lot of good points. However, as one commenter put it, "There are great points in this article. However, the average dolt that visits this site will use it as an excuse to never question authority ever. 'Go back to bed America' -Bill Hicks". -WisdomPersona That does sum up a large concern with this rationale. Basically, while the points above (and in the linked post) I believe are very valid, it appears on the surface to be an "argument from authority" fallacy. However, it's not merely saying, "Because NASA and the other said so". The point here is many people and organizations not only support the idea but have also provided much evidence that also supports the notion of the moon landings happening. It is also noting the qualification disparity between the accuser, the hoax supporters, and the accused, those who did/helped/observed the landings and subsequent related science. This is to say that while I, for example, might be knowledgeable enough to make an informed guess or opinion, when someone who is an "expect" or specialist in a given field or topic, then unless I can show discrepancies that cannot adequately accounted for with sufficient evidence and a plausible explanation to account for it (though this latter point is not as needed), the expert's knowledge, when verifiable, will trump my stance. As you can see from that lengthy explanation, it has more to do with the evidence behind the person rather than the person. To this end, and seen from this angle, then the argument above is very legitimate.

Burden of Proof

The concept of "burden of proof" is simple: where or to whom supporting evidence to a position or assertion is assigned. In the scientific method, this burden is placed upon those who make a claim. Why? Science cannot prove a negative; it can, however, prove trends (positives). It is also practical, since any observation, especially those that are extraordinary, can be accurate, incomplete, askew, or intentionally false. This same logic is applied to the US legal system, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In the UK, it is the opposite, where the defendant is required to prove their innocence. The logic for this, imo, is from a optimistic since of civility and honesty from people. Basically, a plaintiff is presumed not to speak of otherwise damaging incrimination without due cause. Since a pragmatic look at reality proves this idealized since of (British) honestly to be very much unreliable or outright false, or at least untypical, the system is thus inherently flawed. While the US version, even in pristine condition, is not perfect, it is inherently more logical and just (as defined by modern western ideals of the terms).

Why am I bringing this up? 'Cause some out there like to this the skeptics, dreaded debunkers that we are often accused of (and not necessarily without cause), should be the ones to prove certain claims as false. Srsly? I doubt those in America would like that logic used on them when in our court system. As for people in a UK-based system, I argue that the stance, especially in a scientific endeavor towards the reality of the situation, is lacking in logic, Still, how the court system in either country is set up has no baring on how the scientific methodology works. To this end, I do not understand why anyone who wants to be taken seriously by science would not want to have its evidence accepted by its methods. Considering the track record of the scientific method, minus the human factors for bias or idiocy, the only thing special pleading does is make your argument or claim look that much more like bullshit or half-baked.