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.

Why Skeptics Should NOT Hoax

So I was listening to SasquatchWatch Radio on my iPod and the 25 May 2009 edition talked about hoaxing and who people do it. It is a mildly informative episode certainly worth taking a listen to. (Yes, I am a fan of the show. What!? A skeptic can't enjoy a Bigfoot radio show!?) Anyway, the topic of skeptics (or others) preforming hoaxes, usually for the purposes of proving that humans, or specifically believers, can easily be fooled. One of the more well known and recent examples if the Pen and Teller stunt for their HBO show Bullshit!. (I believe it was highlighted on the first episode of season 4 entitled "Cryptozoology".) The discussion of the topic in general and of this example in particular gave me cause to pause.

Why do skeptics hoax?

If it was back in the day (whenever that is) before such stunts were preformed and the goal was demonstrating that people can be fooled, it might make sense. However, most sensible people already realize the limitations of human perception and if anyone says they cannot be fooled, skeptic or believer, then they are primary target for just chuck a fooling. Still, we are in the here and now and unless you are trying to provide a point that a certain event can be reproduced though trickery, that is one thing and certainly NOT hoaxing. Hoaxing, remember, is (often) a deliberate act to deceive, usually with personal benefits to the hoaxer. (Doesn't sound too dissimilar to lying, does it?) We could argue specifics but let us keep to a base straightforward scenario for this definition.

Should skeptic hoax?

What hoaxing (by anyone) does is expose the limitations on a given piece of evidence, whether that is eye-witness testimony, photo or video images, or even physical signs, items, or features. Beyond that, it does little to reveal anything that most honest believers and skeptics alike don't already know. Most believer in Bigfoot should/do admit the limits of their evidence, but they insist that there is nonetheless evidence. More skeptics should be aware of this and not offhandedly dismiss the topic entirely. If the common skeptical logic is correct and there is (likely) no Bigfoot, then how does one expect to persuade believers if all you do is insult and isolate them from your cause? If the believer is right and there are Bigfoot, then acknowledging the limitations of the current evidence, even if it is more compelling than mainstream science is willing to admit, is key to focusing on new and better lines of evidence.

Answer?

Bottom line here is that skeptics should NOT hoax because there is no point and if anything it further isolates your potential audience of believers and only degrading your stance by insulting those who truly believe something is out there. This, of course, applies to all areas of pseudo-science and cryptozoology. If anything, Bullshit! should have attempted to take up the challenge of a specific person or group that claimed immunity to being duped or could (easily) discern a hoax. Here, a point can easily be made. In its current incarnation, the Bullshit! Bigfoot video is unproductive at best and counterproductive at worse because of its redundant nature and undefined criteria for new net results. This negative effect can also extend into those on the fence or the general public, who will view such repetitive antics as silly or even vindictive, if not dumb and pointless.