What kind of fallacy makes invalid assumptions about key players?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Some propagandists claim that 1) if the first moon landing was faked, then 2) it would have been a plot involving a huge number of conspirators (I think some sources cite something like 400,000). Therefore, there couldn't have been a conspiracy since that many people can't keep a secret.
In fact, conspiracies are hierarchical. If the moon landing was faked, there would have been a far smaller number of conspirators pulling the strings.
Therefore, the argument that there was no moon landing hoax because 400,000 people can't keep a secret is obviously silly. What would you call this kind of fallacy?
Note: I'm not saying the moon landing was faked. I'm just pointing out a flawed argument associated with the ongoing debate.
P.S. I may have posted a similar question long ago. If this is a repeat, perhaps you can give me the URL of the page where the question is answered. I think this is a new question, though.
Answers
3Before getting into the discussion, the person who says the moon landing was faked has to overcome the burden of proof issue. My practice is to start at the root of the logical hierarchical tree because otherwise, one is practicing mental masturbation. Advice from Mary Poppins: Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start.
The burden of proof is upon the person who presents a proposition as true and not upon anyone else to disprove the proposition. A simple internet search for "burden of proof" will show the universality of this rule and why.
Thus, when one presents the proposition that the moon landing was fake, the proper response is NOT to argue facts to the contrary. The response should be: upon what evidence do you base your proposition.
It is not up to a "denier" to prove that the landing was not faked. It is upon the shoulders of the proponent to adduce credible evidence that it was.
It would exaggeration. This article says 400,000 made it possible for the moon landings, but as you aptly point out, it is irrational to think that every one of the 400,000 was involved in a position where if the moon landings had been faked, they would have to be in on the deception. Here is what AI has to say when asked about the extent of a cover up under a hypothetical conspiracy:
Focusing on the direct involvement, here is a breakdown of the estimated number of people required:
United States
NASA Personnel
- Astronauts: 24 astronauts involved in Apollo missions (including those who orbited the Moon and those who landed).
- Engineers and Technicians: Approximately 400,000 people worked on the Apollo program, but only a fraction would need to be directly involved in the conspiracy. Let's estimate about 10,000 key engineers and technicians.
- Mission Control: About 400 people were actively involved in each mission in Mission Control.
- Scientists and Researchers: Around 500 scientists and researchers would be directly analyzing the lunar samples and data.
Government Officials
- Top-level NASA Executives: Around 50 key administrators and decision-makers.
- Politicians: An estimated 50 high-level politicians.
Military Personnel
- Security Teams: Approximately 1,000 security personnel.
- Communication Teams: Around 200 communication specialists.
Media Personnel
- Journalists and Broadcasters: Around 200 key media personnel involved in reporting and broadcasting the events.
Film Industry
- Directors, Producers, Special Effects Artists: An estimated 100 film industry professionals.
International Involvement
Soviet Union
- Government Officials and Scientists: Around 200 key individuals.
Allied Countries
- Space Agencies and Observatories: Approximately 200 people from allied space agencies and observatories.
Contractors and Private Companies
- Aerospace Contractors: About 5,000 key personnel from major contractors.
- Technology Providers: Around 500 people from technology companies.
Total Estimate
Adding up these estimates:
NASA Personnel: 24 (astronauts) + 10,000 (engineers/technicians) + 400 (mission control) + 500 (scientists) = 10,924
Government Officials: 50 (NASA executives) + 50 (politicians) = 100
Military Personnel: 1,000 (security) + 200 (communication) = 1,200
Media Personnel: 200
Film Industry: 100
International Involvement: 200 (Soviet Union) + 200 (allied countries) = 400
Contractors and Private Companies: 5,000 (aerospace) + 500 (technology) = 5,500
Grand Total
Estimated Total Direct Involvement: Approximately 18,424 people
This estimate gives a rough number of individuals directly involved in the hypothetical conspiracy to fake the moon landings.
Here's why:
1. **Misrepresentation of the Initial Argument:** The propagandists initially set up a scenario where faking the moon landing would require the involvement of 400,000 people, which is an exaggeration and oversimplification of how such a complex conspiracy would feasibly operate. This misrepresentation makes the argument easier to attack.
2. **Refuting the Misrepresented Argument:** By claiming that it's impossible for 400,000 people to keep a secret, they are attacking the exaggerated claim rather than addressing the more plausible scenario that a much smaller group could orchestrate a conspiracy in a hierarchical manner.
This Straw Man argument diverts from the more reasonable and potentially more threatening idea that a smaller group could be responsible for such a conspiracy, thus making the broader argument against moon landing conspiracy theories weaker by attacking a less defensible version of it.
Another aspect worth mentioning is the **Appeal to Numbers Fallacy (Argumentum ad Numerum)** which asserts that if many people are involved or believe something, then it must be true or false. In this case, the assumption that 400,000 people would have to be involved (and hence conspiracy would be impossible) plays into this poor reasoning.
However, the core issue lies in the Straw Man fallacy where the original argument is misrepresented to make it easier to counter.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course