Apollo Hoax: Rogan vs Plait

Below is linked a debate between Joe Rogan and Phil Plait regarding the Apollo Moon Hoax.  I have read on this site that Joe Rogan trounces Phil Plait in this debate, and so I was intrigued and watched it.  Having done that, it is easy to see how one might believe that based on Joe Rogan's aggressive arguing style, but based on the facts of the matter it does not seem so clear cut to me.  I want FEers and/or Hoax believers to point out the arguments that Rogan makes they find the most compelling:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I also wanted to post a link to conversation years later that Rogan had with Neil DeGrasse Tyson where he talks about how foolish he was to believe in the Apollo Hoax:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I respect Joe Rogan, he looked at the evidence and humbly admitted he was wrong.

It's not too late for the FE'rs here to do the same. This is a shining example of how one can be stubbornly wrong but also honest.

I respect Joe Rogan, he looked at the evidence and humbly admitted he was wrong.

It's not too late for the FE'rs here to do the same. This is a shining example of how one can be stubbornly wrong but also honest.

Yeah, but he was sincere in his beliefs....

Quote from: rottingroom on November 25, 2014, 06:46:16 AM

I respect Joe Rogan, he looked at the evidence and humbly admitted he was wrong.

It's not too late for the FE'rs here to do the same. This is a shining example of how one can be stubbornly wrong but also honest.

Yeah, but he was sincere in his beliefs....

Well you and I probably agree that lot's of people here are not sincere, but some probably are.

I was not very impressed with Phil Plait on the historical facts, like the Von Braun trip to Antarctica. As a career debunker he should not get surprised by facts by Joe Rogan.

I was not very impressed with Phil Plait on the historical facts, like the Von Braun trip to Antarctica. As a career debunker he should not get surprised by facts by Joe Rogan.

I don't blame him though. To be good at arguing with a moon denier you have to be more aware of their specific claims.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 25, 2014, 07:18:56 AM

I was not very impressed with Phil Plait on the historical facts, like the Von Braun trip to Antarctica. As a career debunker he should not get surprised by facts by Joe Rogan.

I don't blame him though. To be good at arguing with a moon denier you have to be more aware of their specific claims.

Fair enough. He did crush Rogan on the science though. I was really surprised to hear Rogan push the Nazi connection like it had specific relevance to the Apollo Hoax.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 25, 2014, 07:22:41 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 25, 2014, 07:18:56 AM

I was not very impressed with Phil Plait on the historical facts, like the Von Braun trip to Antarctica. As a career debunker he should not get surprised by facts by Joe Rogan.

I don't blame him though. To be good at arguing with a moon denier you have to be more aware of their specific claims.

Fair enough. He did crush Rogan on the science though. I was really surprised to hear Rogan push the Nazi connection like it had specific relevance to the Apollo Hoax.

I mean to be honest a lot of moon denier claims are pretty clever. Some so much that you have to give a good effort to see the fallacy or problem. They have all been dealt with sufficiently but its not like the problem is clear at first glance in a lot of cases. To be honest, someone like you or me, who isn't as experienced as a scientist might even be better at dealing with these types than some scientists because they don't spend their time dealing with the false claims that moon deniers make like we do. Scientists spend more time actually doing science, not debunking fallacious claims.

Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil.  Standup comedian.

Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions.  Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.

—End of story.

Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil.  Standup comedian.

Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions.  Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.

—End of story.

Argument from authority.  End of story.

You literally have no idea how to debate do you?

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 26, 2014, 12:07:02 AM

Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil.  Standup comedian.

Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions.  Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.

—End of story.

Argument from authority.  End of story.

You literally have no idea how to debate do you?

You should be aware that in order to competently debate anything of a complex scientific nature, one must be qualified to do so.  Joe Rogan is a stand-up comic, with absolutely zero scientific qualifications (which he happily admits to humself).  On the other hand, Phil Plait is a world-renowned astrophysicist.

So in this particular debate (moderated by a magician!) Rogan is totally, academically unequipped to debate with Plait, and Plait showed a lot of good-humoured tolerance even agreeing to debate science with Rogan.  Personally, I wouldn't have wasted my time.  And, true to form, Rogan simply regurgitated the same old, same old, misinformation about the space missions that's been published on a thousand conspiracy sites over the years.

It was funny to see Rogan stumble on his very first claim—about the Van Allen radiation belts LOL.  He couldn't even get the name of their discoverer correct, (James), which certainly proved his own admission that he knew nothing about space science.

So in this specific debate, there is no "claim to authority" being made—or suggested by me.  Plait's extensive scientific qualifications form the very basis for his domination of this all-too-brief, one-sided encounter with the ill-informed Rogan.  The only saving grace for Rogan (during this debate) is that he doesn't take himself too seriously, and a lot of what he says is purely tongue in cheek.

I do note though that you agree (with me) that "He did crush Rogan on the science though".  And surely science per se formed the entire foundation of the debate?

So... to answer your original question:  Rogan made no new and/or compelling arguments to support his claims.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 26, 2014, 06:47:23 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 26, 2014, 12:07:02 AM

Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil.  Standup comedian.

Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions.  Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.

—End of story.

Argument from authority.  End of story.

You literally have no idea how to debate do you?

You should be aware that in order to competently debate anything of a complex scientific nature, one must be qualified to do so.

You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything.  Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.

Ausgeoff, the reason why logical fallacies can be pointed out in a debate is because any argument should be judged by its merits alone.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 26, 2014, 06:47:23 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 26, 2014, 12:07:02 AM

Joe Rogan, academic qualifications = nil.  Standup comedian.

Phil Plait academic qualifications = PhD in astronomy. Part of Hubble Space Telescope team, produced images and spectra of astronomical objects, advisor for NASA missions.  Works also included in Encyclopaedia Britannica's Yearbook of Science and The Future.

—End of story.

Argument from authority.  End of story.

You literally have no idea how to debate do you?

You should be aware that in order to competently debate anything of a complex scientific nature, one must be qualified to do so.  Joe Rogan is a stand-up comic, with absolutely zero scientific qualifications (which he happily admits to humself).  On the other hand, Phil Plait is a world-renowned astrophysicist.

Incorrect as Jimmy aptly pointed out.

So in this particular debate (moderated by a magician!)

Ad Hominem!

Rogan is totally, academically unequipped to debate with Plait,

Again, this is nothing more than an argument from authority.  "Plait is a scientist and so Rogan can offer no obstacle to him."  This is obviously incorrect as Rogan made a few points that Plait could not rebut.

and Plait showed a lot of good-humoured tolerance even agreeing to debate science with Rogan.

They debated more than science.  They also debated history and politics.  Did you watch the video?

Personally, I wouldn't have wasted my time.

You would never have been asked.

  And, true to form, Rogan simply regurgitated the same old, same old, misinformation about the space missions that's been published on a thousand conspiracy sites over the years.

True to what form?

It was funny to see Rogan stumble on his very first claim—about the Van Allen radiation belts LOL.  He couldn't even get the name of their discoverer correct, (James), which certainly proved his own admission that he knew nothing about space science.

Another Ad Hominem!  What does Rogan mis-remembering a name have to do with the substance of what he put forward?  Wait, don't answer, I got this: NOTHING!

So in this specific debate, there is no "claim to authority" being made—or suggested by me.  Plait's extensive scientific qualifications form the very basis for his domination of this all-too-brief, one-sided encounter with the ill-informed Rogan.  The only saving grace for Rogan (during this debate) is that he doesn't take himself too seriously, and a lot of what he says is purely tongue in cheek.

Rogan put it to Plait on the Von Braun antarctica trip which Plait knew nothing about.  Plait made up factoids about the Japanese discovering meteors there in 1969 which he later back-tracked on and basically conceded the point.  Within the confines of their debate, Rogan won that point.  He also took Plait to task on the political and historical facts.  Although I agree that Plait won out on the Van Allen Belts and lighting points, a conspiracy is not just a scientific matter but also a political and organizational one and he did not carry the day on those fronts.  It was hardly a domination.

I do note though that you agree (with me) that "He did crush Rogan on the science though".

Not sure if you understand how to tell time, but that would be you agreeing with me.

And surely science per se formed the entire foundation of the debate?

As I pointed out before the existence of a conspiracy is not wholly defined by scientific issues.

So... to answer your original question:  Rogan made no new and/or compelling arguments to support his claims.

Presumably you mean this:

I want FEers and/or Hoax believers to point out the arguments that Rogan makes they find the most compelling:

Channels Jroa: Are you claiming to be a FEer or a Hoaxster?

You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything.  Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.

Are you seriously claiming that Joe Rogan is as "qualified" as Phil Plait to talk knowledgeably about space and astrophysics?  Rogan and Plait are equally qualified to talk about the quality of hamburgers or to review a movie, but when it comes to pure science, Rogan just ain't in the running.  And which he jokingly admits to at the start of the interview.

I'm actually more interested as to why alleged round earthers here are virtually defending Rogan and bad-mouthing Plait.  Surely any genuine round earther should be taking the scientific piss out of Rogan's absurd meanderings?  He's a top class comedian, but as even a schoolboy scientist he fails dismally.  Sorry.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 27, 2014, 09:31:04 AM

You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything.  Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.

Are you seriously claiming that Joe Rogan is as "qualified" as Phil Plait to talk knowledgeably about space and astrophysics?  Rogan and Plait are equally qualified to talk about the quality of hamburgers or to review a movie, but when it comes to pure science, Rogan just ain't in the running.  And which he jokingly admits to at the start of the interview.

I'm actually more interested as to why alleged round earthers here are virtually defending Rogan and bad-mouthing Plait.  Surely any genuine round earther should be taking the scientific piss out of Rogan's absurd meanderings?  He's a top class comedian, but as even a schoolboy scientist he fails dismally.  Sorry.

We are not defending rogan. We are dismissing logical fallacies. There is a difference.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 27, 2014, 09:31:04 AM

You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything.  Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.

Are you seriously claiming that Joe Rogan is as "qualified" as Phil Plait to talk knowledgeably about space and astrophysics? 

Hello?  Is that you jroa?

Here's what I said:

You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 27, 2014, 09:31:04 AM

You don't need formal qualifications to debate anything.  Knowledge, not qualifications, is what is important.

Are you seriously claiming that Joe Rogan is as "qualified" as Phil Plait to talk knowledgeably about space and astrophysics?  Rogan and Plait are equally qualified to talk about the quality of hamburgers or to review a movie, but when it comes to pure science, Rogan just ain't in the running.  And which he jokingly admits to at the start of the interview.

I'm actually more interested as to why alleged round earthers here are virtually defending Rogan and bad-mouthing Plait.  Surely any genuine round earther should be taking the scientific piss out of Rogan's absurd meanderings?  He's a top class comedian, but as even a schoolboy scientist he fails dismally.  Sorry.

Surely Plait is not perfect and just because he espouses the world view I take to be correct, does not mean he should be free from criticism.  I criticized Plait as a conspiracy debunker because he was genuinely surprised at some fairly important facts surrounding the Apollo missions.  I was pretty clear to say that in the realm of pure science, he clearly carried the day, but that a debate about a conspiracy is not purely a debate about science.  I was also surprised at how adept Rogan was at carrying his side of the debate on even though he was throoughly trounced at the beginning. 

Why are you so polarized?  People do not always have to agree, it is one of the virtues of open societies.  For example AusGeoff, you and I are both REers, yet I think you are a terrible debater and give our side a bad name.  I still agree with the essence of most of what you say, I just utterly disagree with your delivery.

I still agree with the essence of most of what you say, I just utterly disagree with your delivery.

As is your prerogative.  You should know by now that I'm the sort of person who calls it as he sees it (whether right or wrong).  And you're more than welcome to disagree with my "delivery"—as you put it.  No skin off my back.

Presumably then, by omission, you're quite happy with sceptimatic's "delivery" as you've not once questioned that?

Maybe you need to clarify just what you mean by "delivery"?  Mine's totally disagreeable, but sceptimatic's is apparently okay with you?

—What a bizarre value judgement.   

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 11:27:24 AM

I still agree with the essence of most of what you say, I just utterly disagree with your delivery.

As is your prerogative.  You should know by now that I'm the sort of person who calls it as he sees it (whether right or wrong).  And you're more than welcome to disagree with my "delivery"—as you put it.  No skin off my back.

Presumably then, by omission, you're quite happy with sceptimatic's "delivery" as you've not once questioned that?

This is just a good old-fashioned deductive fallacy.  Your conclusion does not follow from the premises.  It is worse than that, if you looked through my posting history you would see that I have indeed called scepti out for being arrogant and rude in the past.  Fuck you are terrible at this.

Maybe you need to clarify just what you mean by "delivery"?  Mine's totally disagreeable, but sceptimatic's is apparently okay with you?

—What a bizarre value judgement.   

No you took my meaning of "delivery" as intended, you just misconstrued and shoehorned my comment in to something it is inherently not.

Fuck you are terrible at this.

Is this really the best standard of debate you can bring to the table?  Would you say this to your grandmother?

It's actually quite telling that although you accuse me of faulty debating skills, you resort to gutter talk.  Tsk, tsk. 

What sort of debater does this make you?  A pretty desperate one obviously.   

Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing

Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing

Yup.  Too bad you never see FEers admitting and working out their differences.

Quote from: hoppy on November 27, 2014, 01:30:45 PM

Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing

Yup.  Too bad you never see FEers admitting and working out their differences.

What did Ausgeoff admit to?

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: hoppy on November 27, 2014, 01:30:45 PM

Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing

Yup.  Too bad you never see FEers admitting and working out their differences.

What did Ausgeoff admit to?

Not too much. Definitely not being guilty of many terrible and fallacious arguments.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 01:57:21 PM

What did Ausgeoff admit to?

Not too much. Definitely not being guilty of many terrible and fallacious arguments.

LOL..... you mean my "fallacious" arguments you're always rabbiting on about, but are unable to quote?   

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 02:41:23 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 27, 2014, 01:57:21 PM

What did Ausgeoff admit to?

Not too much. Definitely not being guilty of many terrible and fallacious arguments.

LOL..... you mean my "fallacious" arguments you're always rabbiting on about, but are unable to quote?   

I'd rather not go back through the plethora of posts where this has been done so instead, to preserve my own peace of mind, I am going to pretend you didn't just write that.

...

Much better...

Quote from: hoppy on November 27, 2014, 01:30:45 PM

Even when scepti checks out for a little while, you guys just keep arguing

Yup.  Too bad you never see FEers admitting and working out their differences.

Fe'ers accept their differences. Re'ers just gotta keep talking shit.

Fe'ers accept their differences.

Nope.  Flat earthers have zero things to actually agree upon, and which obviates them having any "differences". 

No common flat earth map.  No flat earth model.  No flat earth photos.  No flat earth diagrams.  No flat earth scientists.  No flat earth planetary system.  No flat earth sun or moon model.  No gravity.  No rocket theory.  No satellites.  Etc.

And none of them can even agree on the veracity of their own flat earth Wiki.   

Quote from: hoppy on November 27, 2014, 06:03:09 PM

Fe'ers accept their differences.

Nope.  Flat earthers have zero things to actually agree upon, and which obviates them having any "differences". 

No common flat earth map.  No flat earth model.  No flat earth photos.  No flat earth diagrams.  No flat earth scientists.  No flat earth planetary system.  No flat earth sun or moon model.  No gravity.  No rocket theory.  No satellites.  Etc.

And none of them can even agree on the veracity of their own flat earth Wiki.   

What??  NO!!! If they have nothing in common (other than the obvious belief in a FE) then they have ONLY differences.