Hurrah for QI!

[Paul Beardsley]

This evening's episode of BBC's quiz programme QI ("Quite Interesting") is running with the theme of hoaxes.

They have just covered the moon hoax - a quick-fire demolition of all the idiotic reasons-for-thinking-it-didn't-happen, delivered by Stephen Fry with undiluted contempt for HBs. Comedian David Mitchell was unable to laugh about it - to paraphrase him, he said something along the lines of, "The human race is in trouble when people cannot believe anyone achieved something that they cannot achieve themselves." He also expressed dismay at the stat that 25% of Brits believe nobody ever landed on the moon.

They covered the movement of the flag, the lack of a crater under the lander, and the footprint that would have been similar had the regolith been made of flour. In a couple of minutes they delivered material that would not have embarrassed the likes of Jay or Jason or Phil - in a popular programme.

[HenrikOlsen]

But then, QI is an intelligent program for intelligent people, preferably with a rather low-brow sense of humour, but that's not really relevant.:)

Where else would you see people getting laughs out of the triple point of water being 0.01 °C rather than 0 °C.

[Garrison]

This evening's episode of BBC's quiz programme QI ("Quite Interesting") is running with the theme of hoaxes.

They have just covered the moon hoax - a quick-fire demolition of all the idiotic reasons-for-thinking-it-didn't-happen, delivered by Stephen Fry with undiluted contempt for HBs. Comedian David Mitchell was unable to laugh about it - to paraphrase him, he said something along the lines of, "The human race is in trouble when people cannot believe anyone achieved something that they cannot achieve themselves." He also expressed dismay at the stat that 25% of Brits believe nobody ever landed on the moon.

They covered the movement of the flag, the lack of a crater under the lander, and the footprint that would have been similar had the regolith been made of flour. In a couple of minutes they delivered material that would not have embarrassed the likes of Jay or Jason or Phil - in a popular programme.

Of course as an entertainment programme they aren't bound to some phony notion of balance that seems to plague news programmes and requires them to trot out some HB every time the moon landings come up 'to give both sides'.

[Paul Beardsley]

Of course as an entertainment programme they aren't bound to some phony notion of balance that seems to plague news programmes and requires them to trot out some HB every time the moon landings come up 'to give both sides'.

I wonder if Dara Ó Briain put a stop to that. I doubt it but I hope so.

[HenrikOlsen]

I wonder if Dara Ó Briain put a stop to that. I doubt it but I hope so.
I recently had reason to relisten to his skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo) (YouTube clip, slightly NSF language). I'm guessing this is the one you're thinking of.

He's bemoaning the absurdity of also talking to homeopathetics and other quacks when reporting on medical science, by saying that at least they don't do that in the really hard sciences, otherwise a program about the space station would include asking "Barry, who believes the sky is a carpet painted by god" about his opinion.

[Halcyon Dayz]

This evening's episode of BBC's quiz programme QI ("Quite Interesting") is running with the theme of hoaxes.

They have just covered the moon hoax - a quick-fire demolition of all the idiotic reasons-for-thinking-it-didn't-happen, delivered by Stephen Fry with undiluted contempt for HBs. Comedian David Mitchell was unable to laugh about it - to paraphrase him, he said something along the lines of, "The human race is in trouble when people cannot believe anyone achieved something that they cannot achieve themselves." He also expressed dismay at the stat that 25% of Brits believe nobody ever landed on the moon.

They covered the movement of the flag, the lack of a crater under the lander, and the footprint that would have been similar had the regolith been made of flour. In a couple of minutes they delivered material that would not have embarrassed the likes of Jay or Jason or Phil - in a popular programme.
It's on YouTube - QI: Were The Moon Landings Faked? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S6bc-p8HWU)

[Fooglmog]

Of course, they also have this segment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1zuAQAhhMI&NR=1&feature=fvwp) where they claim that cruithne is Earth's "second moon"... so let's not give them too much credit.

[Jim]

Yeah, so?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html
http://professorelliot.com/wordpress/2009/09/earths-second-moon/
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/cruithne.html

[HenrikOlsen]

Of course, they also have this segment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1zuAQAhhMI&NR=1&feature=fvwp) where they claim that cruithne is Earth's "second moon"... so let's not give them too much credit.
Well it is, for some definitions of moon.

[Fooglmog]

I'm sorry, I happen to hold onto the old fashion precept that to call an object a "moon" it must actually be orbiting the object which you claim it is a moon of.

[Jim]

I'm sorry, I happen to hold onto the old fashion precept that to call an object a "moon" it must actually be orbiting the object which you claim it is a moon of.

So, because they don't hold to your "old fashion(ed)" definition of a moon, we shouldn't "give them too much credit" on the moon landings?

[Fooglmog]

So, because they don't hold to your "old fashion(ed)" definition of a moon, we shouldn't "give them too much credit" on the moon landings?
When that old fashioned view is correct, we should not give them too much credit in general. I have no specific issue with the moon landing clip. I thought it was well done.

The use of the words "old fashioned" was meant to be ironic... unless, of course, you disagree with the precept that a moon ought to actually orbit its the object suggested as its parent body.

Could I ask, though, why you removed from your post the bit of the quote that actually explained what my "old fashioned definition of a moon" is? It seems like a deliberate manipulation of what I said to make a sensible statement seem silly.

[Halcyon Dayz]

You actually seem a bit to serious about what is actually a rather silly, though informative programme.
They mentioned Cruithne, and argued about what a moon is, and bashed HBs, on national TV.

What more can you want?

[Tedward]

QI can be a bit pedantic at times, its part of the fun and part of the way they catch out the contestants I think. But they have tackled a few "theories" and some descriptions are not repeatable here for some of them. Mr Fry does have a way of pouring derision on a topic.

Not seen this episode. Have to wait for a repeat.

[eburacum45]

QI do get things wrong. I was particularly annoyed when Fry insisted that monotremes and marsupials are not mammals. But it is about as reliable as Wikipedia.

[Jim]

When that old fashioned view is correct, we should not give them too much credit in general. I have no specific issue with the moon landing clip. I thought it was well done.

The use of the words "old fashioned" was meant to be ironic... unless, of course, you disagree with the precept that a moon ought to actually orbit its the object suggested as its parent body.

Could I ask, though, why you removed from your post the bit of the quote that actually explained what my "old fashioned definition of a moon" is? It seems like a deliberate manipulation of what I said to make a sensible statement seem silly.

Actually, there is an ongoing debate as to whether Cruithne should be classified as a "temporary" moon or a "co-orbital" moon of Earth.

I quoted your entire post.

I guess what bothered me was what seemed an attempt by you to cast doubt on one QI segment based on your opinion that another segment was (IYO) in error.

[Fooglmog]

I guess what bothered me was what seemed an attempt by you to cast doubt on one QI segment based on your opinion that another segment was (IYO) in error.
Jim, I already stated that I have no problems with the clip about the moon hoax. I'm sorry you erred in interpreting my post, but I already corrected you once very clearly. Why are you still stating that I was attempting to cast doubt upon it?

My only intent was to provide this thread with a certain amount of circumspection. I am of the opinion that a program which is meant to deal with facts (all be it, with comedic over tones) does not deserve an excessive amount of praise merely because it presents a segment which appears free of errors. I think that any praise offered ought to reflect the overall quality of the show and, to that end, I wanted to ensure that a more complete view of its quality was available.

It should also be noted that if we do (for some strange reason) decide to use the term "moon" to refer to objects that orbit the sun in near resonance to Earth the segment from QI is still wrong. Cruithne is not the only other body to meet this criteria... I know for a fact that 1998 UP1 has a 1:1 orbital resonance with Earth. I believe I've read about others as well, but they were more recent discoveries and may not have been known at the time of the clip in question.

[Fooglmog]

Actually, there is an ongoing debate as to whether Cruithne should be classified as a "temporary" moon or a "co-orbital" moon of Earth.
There is some debate as to what to call resonant bodies, certainly. However, Cruithne orbits the sun. It is therefore not a satellite of Earth. I have yet to come across any scientific journal which definitively uses the term "moon" to refer to anything except an object orbiting a planetary body as a satellite. If you can provide references to the contrary, I would happily rescind my point.

I personally have not seen either "temporary moon" or "co-orbital moon" suggested as names for objects like Cruithne. I would normally give you the benefit of the doubt (as I have strong suspicions that you have a much stronger background in astronomy than I) however, both of those terms are already in use as references to entirely different bodies. A co-orbital moon is a moon which follows the same orbital path around a planet as another moon (such as Janus and Epimetheus around Saturn), while a temporary moon is exactly what is sounds like -- a body which is captured by a planet, orbits it for a time, then escapes (such as Kushida-Muramatsu did around Jupiter).

Forgive my cynicism, but I can't help but wonder if you simply decided to write down two known types of moons and say "they're thinking of calling Cruithne this" in order to bolster the argument that Cruithne is a moon of Earth. I sincerely hope that this thought is ill founded, it would be troublesome to me if someone who is a mod (and seems to have the respect of a lot of people) on this forum would intentionally present a false argument. Could you set my fears at ease and provide academic sources which suggest these names for Cruithne?

((Might I suggest that this is a discussion that ought to be split off at this point? I know that I brought up Cruithne in this thread, but it was to make a very specific point. If we're going to discuss whether or not it actually is a moon to Earth, that's a discussion that belongs neither in this thread nor in the conspiracy section of this site. I've separated this, which deals exclusively with Cruithne as a moon, from my past post, which dealt with QI, to make the splitting process easier.))

[Paul Beardsley]

I am of the opinion that a program which is meant to deal with facts (all be it, with comedic over tones) does not deserve an excessive amount of praise merely because it presents a segment which appears free of errors. I think that any praise offered ought to reflect the overall quality of the show and, to that end, I wanted to ensure that a more complete view of its quality was available.

My reason for praising it was because it was pushing the truth even though the lie was popular.

[Strange]

Jim, I already stated that I have no problems with the clip about the moon hoax. I'm sorry you erred in interpreting my post, but I already corrected you once very clearly.

Au contraire.


When that old fashioned view is correct, we should not give them too much credit in general.

I also interpreted that as casting doubt on (nearly) everything they say.

[Fooglmog]

My reason for praising it was because it was pushing the truth even though the lie was popular.
Yeah, I understand. In fact, I'm comfortable with that. Whether or not something deserves praise is entirely subjective. I imagine we'd likely disagree on which works of art deserve praise as well. However, if I expressed praise for Quentin Massys' Queen of Tunis and you expressed to me why you disagreed, it wouldn't bother me. I'd probably appreciate the alternate perspective. It's nothing worth getting in a tizzy over.

The only reason why we're still discussing this is because Jim invented a meaning behind what I said which had nothing to do with what I was attempting to communicate.

[Fooglmog]

[/b]When that old fashioned view is correct, we should not give them too much credit in general.[/b]



I also interpreted that as casting doubt on (nearly) everything they say.
I understand how you come to that interpretation... but only if you read it while intentionally looking for something to disagree with (a common practice, it seems, on these forums... though I can't demonstrate it specifically in your case).

The words "too much" have no hidden meaning here. They literally mean "more than is deserved". And stating that "in general, we should not give QI more credit than it deserves" is a very long way from "casting doubt on nearly everything they say". This statement is entirely clear -- especially in the context of my overall theme.

For those who aren't willing to look through my previous posts to understand my theme, I'll make it clear:

We ought to expect QI to get its facts correct.
Merely living up to expectations is not enough to deserve praise.
Since there are examples where QI was incorrect, they have not lived up to expections.
Because of this, QI does not deserve praise.

In this context, the statement that "in general, we should not give QI more credit than it deserves" fits perfectly as an explanation for why I choose not to praise the program.

[eburacum45]

To be fair, QI later 'corrected' the 'Cruithne' factoid, not by declaring that it was not really a moon, but by mentioning that several other co-orbiting objects have been found since. So if one accepts the definition of 'moon' that includes Cruithne, apparently used by several different types of media, then this correction puts the record right.

But I'd have preferred some mention of the official IAU definition of 'moon'; this might have been a tricky subject to get a laugh out of, however, unless one takes the the view that the IAU is intrinsically amusing.

[captain swoop]

Discussion of what is and isn't a Moon should be taken to a new thread.

[HenrikOlsen]

One of the things I like is that if someone after the program points out that they were wrong about something, they will say so in a later program.
Admittedly it's often done by posing it as a question and buzzing Alan for answering what was said previously, but that's just the format:D

[Jim]

Jim, I already stated that I have no problems with the clip about the moon hoax. I'm sorry you erred in interpreting my post, but I already corrected you once very clearly. Why are you still stating that I was attempting to cast doubt upon it?

Did you fail to notice the use of the past tense in my statement? It "bothered" me. At least one other Member drew the same inference I did, so your original statement was not as clear in meaning as you may have intended.

[Fooglmog]

It didn't register independently, no. The meaning of the statement is ambiguous and I assumed that you were reinforcing your previous statements rather than accepting the correction.

In my experience, people will often say something "bothered" them without changing positions on the subject. So the past-tense isn't a definitive indicator that anything has been resolved. And that post could certainly be interpreted to mean that you're no longer bothered by it, but still thought I was trying to cast aspersions on the original QI piece.

Regardless, I'm pleased that you're no longer bothered by what I said. I'm equally pleased that you now understand my original intent. I think I'm going to start a thread later today about whether Cruithne is actually a moon of Earth... I hope you'll drop by :)