You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Space Hoax That Time Forgot
- Thread starter Nova Land
- Start date
-
- Tags
- national review
Three years ago I raised what I think is an interesting challenge for skeptics to ponder:
Now is a good time. A recent thread in Politics raises interesting parallels, particularly to the question of how one can best arrive at the truth in a matter such as this.
The current question is controversial, because it hasn't been resolved yet. That makes it harder to agree on what good skeptical process should be. But the question of Soviet space flights is relatively non-controversial now. I think almost everyone here would agree now that the Soviets were correct in their claims that they had put a satellite into orbit in 1957, that they had taken pictures of the moon in 1959, and that they had put a person into space in 1961.
That makes the Soviet story a good one to examine in trying to figure out what would have been good skeptical procedure -- and what wouldn't -- in trying to determine whether the Soviet stories 5 decades ago were true or false.
So once again I invite people to ponder how you think a skeptic living in the time of Lunik and Sputnik should have dealt with the question of whether the Soviet space flights were real or a media hoax.
It takes me a while to get back to things some times. Soon after posing this question, I needed to devote time to other matters and didn't have time to post much on the forum for a while. By the time I was posting actively again, I decided the topic had lain quiescent long enough that it would be better to focus on more current things for a while and wait for a good time to return to this.While in hindsight we know Evans was wrong on this matter, and that the Soviet space program was not the hoax Evans believed it to be, things were not so clear or simple at the time. I think Evans and others were right to raise and consider the possibility that the Soviets were lying about this.
In those days the Soviets were dreadful liars! ... That their space accomplishments might be a hoax, while an extraordinary claim, was by no means out of the question.
As it turned out, they were telling the truth about having put a satellite into orbit in 1957, about having sent up rockets to photograph the moon in 1959, and about having put people into orbit in 1961. But these, too, were extraordinary claims. It would have been just as wrong to blindly accept these things as true as it was to blindly accept that these things were a hoax.
While Evans was wrong in the specific arguments he made, wrong in the way he weighed the evidence, and wrong in the conclusions he reached, in his mind he was the reasonable skeptic and it was the people who accepted Soviet claims who were the uncritical woo woos.
A question I would like to pose for people to think about is, "How do you think a good skeptic should have reacted to the announcements in 1959 about the Luniks and the announcements in 1961 about the Soviets having sent people into orbit?"
It's easy to justify drawing the right conclusions after one knows what the right conclusions are. It is not so easy when the matter is still in doubt...
Now is a good time. A recent thread in Politics raises interesting parallels, particularly to the question of how one can best arrive at the truth in a matter such as this.
The current question is controversial, because it hasn't been resolved yet. That makes it harder to agree on what good skeptical process should be. But the question of Soviet space flights is relatively non-controversial now. I think almost everyone here would agree now that the Soviets were correct in their claims that they had put a satellite into orbit in 1957, that they had taken pictures of the moon in 1959, and that they had put a person into space in 1961.
That makes the Soviet story a good one to examine in trying to figure out what would have been good skeptical procedure -- and what wouldn't -- in trying to determine whether the Soviet stories 5 decades ago were true or false.
So once again I invite people to ponder how you think a skeptic living in the time of Lunik and Sputnik should have dealt with the question of whether the Soviet space flights were real or a media hoax.
My thoughts on the matter appear in the next post.I have some thoughts, but I'll save them for a future post.
One reason Stanton Evans and his supporters were so wrong in their conclusions about this is that they applied inconsistent standards. They were excessively hostile to things they disagreed with, and excessively credulous to things they agreed with. That allowed them to reach a completely off-base conclusion -- while priding themselves for thinking clearly, and feeling superior to the people who had fallen for what they saw as a hoax.
This is a trap which is easy to fall into. People tend to question and challenge the things which they think are wrong -- and to have a blind spot as far as questioning and challenging things which they think are right. Skeptics need to make a conscious effort to avoid this.
The National Review readers who concluded that Evans was right made a big mistake. They saw only one question: Did the Soviets really do what the media is reporting it did? They looked at the evidence and decided it wasn't sufficient to support the media's claims. If one sets the bar sufficiently high, one can always say that the evidence doesn't support the claim, and that's what they did in this case.
How could a skeptic have avoided doing this? By treating the media claims about the Soviet Space program, and Evans' claims about this being a hoax, as two separate matters.
Some of you may not see the need to do this. If Evans is correct that the Soviet announcements were a hoax, then the media stories were wrong. And if the media stories were correct, then Evans is wrong. So why should we consider these separately?
But that's precisely how Evans' believers went wrong. They saw the media stories as being a claim (and thus needing proof). They saw Evans article as being a challenge to that claim (and thus not needing proof).
But Evans was not simply asking, Is this story true? He was asserting that it was not true, and that the Soviets (with the media's witting or unwitting assistance) were perpetrating a hoax. That is a separate claim. Evans claim (that the Soviets and media were lying) and the media claim (that the Soviets had put rockets into space) happen to be mutually contradictory, but that shouldn't distract us from the fact that these are two separate matters and should be evaluated separately.
If one treats these as two separate matters, it becomes much easier for a skeptic living at the time these events happened to reach the correct conclusions. Let me demonstrate.
First, let's weigh the evidence for Evans' claim that the media story is a hoax. I've already analyzed his arguments in posts # 17 (his case for claiming the 1959 lunar orbit was a hoax) and post # 14 (his case for claiming that Gagarin had not actually gone into space). In both cases, his arguments when stripped of their rhetorical flourishes are remarkably flimsy. Evans argues that the astronaut's statement that he sang a song of praise to the Soviet Union while returning to earth shows that the story is a hoax. Evans argues that the astronaut's statement that he slept for 8 of the 25 hours he was in orbit shows that the story is a hoax. No evidence is offered to show that people in orbit can't or won't thing songs in praise of their nation. No evidence is offered that people in orbit can't sleep for 8 out of 25 hours. Weighing the evidence in this matter is simple: the balance of the scales comes down heavily on the side that Evans' claim of a media hoax is not proven.
Note that this does not mean that the media reports are correct. It is perfectly possible for the media story to be wrong, and Evans simply to have done an incompetent job at showing this. That's why the two questions are separate and should be considered separately.
So now let's weigh the evidence for second question: were the media reports sufficient basis for a skeptic to believe that the Soviets had sent a satellite around the moon (in 1959) and had put a man into space (in 1961)?
(a) Was there evidence to support the claim? Yes. There were radio signals sent during the alleged orbits; there were pictures alleged to have been taken from the satellite; and, in 1961, there was a person testifying he had been in orbit. These are not proof that the stories were true, but they are evidence.
(b) Was there evidence to contradict the claim? Yes. Evans points out several minor inconsistencies in the Soviet statements. These are not proof that the stories were false (and, history has shown, these were simply the kinds of errors that creep into any human endeavor) but they are evidence.
To me, then as now, the evidence supporting the claim seemed much more substantial than the evidence contradicting it. It was possible that the stories were false and that the Soviets had manufactured all the evidence -- but there was no good reason to believe that was what had happened. Therefore my weighing of the evidence would be that the balance of the evidence favored the stories being true. It would have been reasonable for a person living at the time to have reached a tentative conclusion that the Soviet claim was true -- leaving the matter open in case additional evidence emerged to shift the balance. As time passed, and additional developments tended to confirm the story, it would be reasonable to move from tentative conclusion to settled matter.
Not everyone weighs the evidence the same way. I would not think it unreasonable if someone more cautions than I am had weighed the evidence on these questions and put both Evans' claim of a hoax and the Soviet claim of successful lunar orbit in 1959 in the not proven category. (Although if the Soviet claim had remained in the not proven category for very long, rather than being moved to the balance of evidence indicates this is true category as the Soviet space achievements continued, then I would say the person was being excessively cautious and therefore not practicing good skepticism).
I also would not think it unreasonable if someone less cautious than I am had weighed the evidence and rejected Evans' claim of a hoax but accepted the Soviet claim as true. A person could quite easily have a consistent standard for how much evidence is needed before they accept a claim as true and feel that Evans' claim had not met that standard but that the media reports had.
But if a person were to conclude that Evans' claim was true and the media claim was false, I would find that unreasonable. I can not think of any consistent standard by which the flimsy evidence for Evans' claim can be considered sufficient to conclude the space launches were hoaxes but the weightier evidence is considered insufficient. In order to do that, a person has to apply different standards of scrutiny to the two claims.
By treating the two questions as one matter, it is easy to use inconsistent standards without being aware of it -- or even to use inconsistent standards and to consider it justified. That's what creationists do. That's what holocaust deniers do. That's what the 9-11 conspiracy theorists do.
By treating such questions separately, it is much easier for people who genuinely want to separate fact from fiction to see when they are using inconsistent standards. It may seem to be more time and effort -- but it is time and effort well spent.
This is a trap which is easy to fall into. People tend to question and challenge the things which they think are wrong -- and to have a blind spot as far as questioning and challenging things which they think are right. Skeptics need to make a conscious effort to avoid this.
The National Review readers who concluded that Evans was right made a big mistake. They saw only one question: Did the Soviets really do what the media is reporting it did? They looked at the evidence and decided it wasn't sufficient to support the media's claims. If one sets the bar sufficiently high, one can always say that the evidence doesn't support the claim, and that's what they did in this case.
How could a skeptic have avoided doing this? By treating the media claims about the Soviet Space program, and Evans' claims about this being a hoax, as two separate matters.
Some of you may not see the need to do this. If Evans is correct that the Soviet announcements were a hoax, then the media stories were wrong. And if the media stories were correct, then Evans is wrong. So why should we consider these separately?
But that's precisely how Evans' believers went wrong. They saw the media stories as being a claim (and thus needing proof). They saw Evans article as being a challenge to that claim (and thus not needing proof).
But Evans was not simply asking, Is this story true? He was asserting that it was not true, and that the Soviets (with the media's witting or unwitting assistance) were perpetrating a hoax. That is a separate claim. Evans claim (that the Soviets and media were lying) and the media claim (that the Soviets had put rockets into space) happen to be mutually contradictory, but that shouldn't distract us from the fact that these are two separate matters and should be evaluated separately.
If one treats these as two separate matters, it becomes much easier for a skeptic living at the time these events happened to reach the correct conclusions. Let me demonstrate.
First, let's weigh the evidence for Evans' claim that the media story is a hoax. I've already analyzed his arguments in posts # 17 (his case for claiming the 1959 lunar orbit was a hoax) and post # 14 (his case for claiming that Gagarin had not actually gone into space). In both cases, his arguments when stripped of their rhetorical flourishes are remarkably flimsy. Evans argues that the astronaut's statement that he sang a song of praise to the Soviet Union while returning to earth shows that the story is a hoax. Evans argues that the astronaut's statement that he slept for 8 of the 25 hours he was in orbit shows that the story is a hoax. No evidence is offered to show that people in orbit can't or won't thing songs in praise of their nation. No evidence is offered that people in orbit can't sleep for 8 out of 25 hours. Weighing the evidence in this matter is simple: the balance of the scales comes down heavily on the side that Evans' claim of a media hoax is not proven.
Note that this does not mean that the media reports are correct. It is perfectly possible for the media story to be wrong, and Evans simply to have done an incompetent job at showing this. That's why the two questions are separate and should be considered separately.
So now let's weigh the evidence for second question: were the media reports sufficient basis for a skeptic to believe that the Soviets had sent a satellite around the moon (in 1959) and had put a man into space (in 1961)?
(a) Was there evidence to support the claim? Yes. There were radio signals sent during the alleged orbits; there were pictures alleged to have been taken from the satellite; and, in 1961, there was a person testifying he had been in orbit. These are not proof that the stories were true, but they are evidence.
(b) Was there evidence to contradict the claim? Yes. Evans points out several minor inconsistencies in the Soviet statements. These are not proof that the stories were false (and, history has shown, these were simply the kinds of errors that creep into any human endeavor) but they are evidence.
To me, then as now, the evidence supporting the claim seemed much more substantial than the evidence contradicting it. It was possible that the stories were false and that the Soviets had manufactured all the evidence -- but there was no good reason to believe that was what had happened. Therefore my weighing of the evidence would be that the balance of the evidence favored the stories being true. It would have been reasonable for a person living at the time to have reached a tentative conclusion that the Soviet claim was true -- leaving the matter open in case additional evidence emerged to shift the balance. As time passed, and additional developments tended to confirm the story, it would be reasonable to move from tentative conclusion to settled matter.
Not everyone weighs the evidence the same way. I would not think it unreasonable if someone more cautions than I am had weighed the evidence on these questions and put both Evans' claim of a hoax and the Soviet claim of successful lunar orbit in 1959 in the not proven category. (Although if the Soviet claim had remained in the not proven category for very long, rather than being moved to the balance of evidence indicates this is true category as the Soviet space achievements continued, then I would say the person was being excessively cautious and therefore not practicing good skepticism).
I also would not think it unreasonable if someone less cautious than I am had weighed the evidence and rejected Evans' claim of a hoax but accepted the Soviet claim as true. A person could quite easily have a consistent standard for how much evidence is needed before they accept a claim as true and feel that Evans' claim had not met that standard but that the media reports had.
But if a person were to conclude that Evans' claim was true and the media claim was false, I would find that unreasonable. I can not think of any consistent standard by which the flimsy evidence for Evans' claim can be considered sufficient to conclude the space launches were hoaxes but the weightier evidence is considered insufficient. In order to do that, a person has to apply different standards of scrutiny to the two claims.
By treating the two questions as one matter, it is easy to use inconsistent standards without being aware of it -- or even to use inconsistent standards and to consider it justified. That's what creationists do. That's what holocaust deniers do. That's what the 9-11 conspiracy theorists do.
By treating such questions separately, it is much easier for people who genuinely want to separate fact from fiction to see when they are using inconsistent standards. It may seem to be more time and effort -- but it is time and effort well spent.
Last edited: