It’s OK to have an open mind. Just not so open that your brains fall out. It’s very messy and hard to clean up. Professional studios? As opposed to Amateur studios, one assumes. Hey, did you hear Phil Collins is making a new record? He’s back in the Stu-Stu-Studio! 🤗 I told ma I think my stand up is ready for the clubs. She said but don’t you have to be funny to be a comedian?
The science of opinion ...
Some may find this interesting (it is).
Some may find this threatening (it isn't, it is science).
Some may read it and use it to help them understand the dynamics of internet forums.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078433
Some may find this threatening (it isn't, it is science).
Some may read it and use it to help them understand the dynamics of internet forums.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078433
Showing 32 responses by geoffkait
How to Clone a Pseudo Skeptic 🤨 🤨 🤨 🤨 1. Assume a condescending air that suggests your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of the science community. 2. Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. 3. Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. 4. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to exclaim, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" 5. Insist that the subject device is easily explained by conventional science so there’s no mystery there. 6. Since John Q Public doesn’t appreciate the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to obscure the difference. 7. Use the tried-and-true skeptics expression, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” as much as possible. |
I’m not so sure. Take this little tidbit I picked up in cyberspace, So What Happened To The Acoustics Forum? | Stereophile.comI noticed the Acoustics forum "went away" 3 days ago and hasn't returned yet? ... I posted an open letter to Ethan Winer (DavidL) where I called him out for attacking my Acoustic ART System ... |
There are a great many audiophile devices that will surely test the suspicious and intractable mind of the skeptic we haven’t touched on too much here. Dare I even broach the subject? You know what I’m talking about. Things that go bump in the night. Things that absolutely drive skeptics right up the wall. Mpingo discs and fancy fuses can’t hold a candle to the Icons of Tweakery. Let me give you a few examples. Silver Rainbow Foil. 😛 Red x Pen. 😬 The Intelligent Chip. 😩 Quantum Temple Bell 🤪 Morphic Message Labels. 😲 The Clever Little Clock. New Dark Matter. The Mystery Tweak which, by the way, I’ve decided not to offer for sale because then it wouldn’t be a secret anymore, would it? Lock four physics PhDs 🤓 🤓 🤓 🤓 in a room for a week and they would not be able to figure them out. |
Let me try to help the OP out. • Keep an arsenal of scientistic buzzwords at the tip of your tongue. So armed, you can effortlessly explain away even the most firmly acknowledged mysteries with a few impressive phrases and a wave of your hand. For example, the undeniable but incomprehensible facts of animal migration may be definitively ascribed to a "biological spatio-temporal vector-navigation program." Likewise, you may call upon such quasi-substantial conceptual conveniences as "biological clock," "self-organization" and "cellular memory" to deflate any suggestion that orthodox science may lack satisfactory explanations for intractably puzzling phenomena. • Establish a crusading "Scientific Truth Foundation" staffed and funded by a hive of fawning acolytes. Then purport to offer a million-dollar reward to anyone who can repeatably demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon. Set the bar for paranormality nowhere in particular. Set the bar for repeatability at a "generous" 98%, safely ensuring that even normal scientific studies that demand a mere preponderance of evidence, or average results above chance, would fail to qualify for the prize. Should someone actually meet or exceed your criteria you can effortlessly dismiss their claim by pointing out that they'd just proven the phenomenon to be perfectly normal! |
Yeah, it keeps me up nights worrying about it. 😳 I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Pain in my pocket book? Are you high or something? That’s exactly the kind of dumbass remark Ethan Winer would make. Are you sure you’re not Ethan Winer? I bet you are. It would be just like him to come in as someone else and say what a great guy Ethan Winer is. Give me a break. And stop creeping me out. |
Shaving the messenger’s head, writing the secret message on his bald pate, letting his hair grown back, then sending him to deliver the message was the first use of spread spectrum communications. To read the message you shave the messengers head. Problem solved! Obviously the dude’s wife might not like it too much. |
Have I read the article? Three guesses. The first two don’t count. You might think I’m just being funny but comedy is subjective. Why on Earth would I want to read an article about the dynamics of the internet? All of the dynamics of human interaction is right there in front of our noses, all day long, every day. Hel-loo! So cut us some slack. The new pseudo-scientist is the same as the old pseudo-scientist (with apologies to The Who) 😬 |
I was thinking more of falling prey to a devious cold blooded killer. Struggling only makes matters worse. https://youtu.be/q2K3v29zeOM |
mapman Sorry to burst your bubble GK I know you think it’s all about you but the 👍 was for the OP not you. 😘 >>>>>Oopsy daisy, my bad! 🤭 |
What’s outside Pleasantville? (Trying to stay calm and keep from revealing he was from the future) I’m from a town where the roads don’t end at the edge of town. It’s not like Pleasantville. There are some places that the road doesn't go in a circle. There are some places where the road keeps going. Keeps going? Yeah, it all just keeps going. |
atdavid OP They may conclude independently whether a benefit was there or not. They may conclude there was a benefit when in fact there was no perceptible change at all. When they go online and see others doing it, it reinforces their perception. This happens often in many areas and people are 100% convinced even though what they believe is impossible. >>>>Or they may conclude independently there was NO benefit when there in fact was a perceptible change. Or they may conclude there was NO benefit but their system and/or their ears failed. That’s why double blind testing is a scam. I am starting to suspect someobody’s been following the wrong.....you know, 🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑. 🚶🏻♂️ |