What is wrong with Audiophiles?

As I said. 24/7 professional forum writer, master debater.

Sure ! Whatever that means. From my experience, whoever does not have a job, says “I’m consulting”

Pseudo-skepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so.

In 1987, Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8]

In 1987, while working as a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudo-skeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar (which he founded):

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...

Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.

— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]

Appeal to Authority

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3] Other authors consider it a fallacy in general to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.[4]

Appeals to authorities[edit]

Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources,[5] with some holding that it is a strong argument[6][7][8] which "has a legitimate force",[9] and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy[10][11][4][12] where, on a conflict of facts, "mere appeal to authority alone had better be avoided".[13]

If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.[2][3]

Use in science[edit]

Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority[14][15][16] as authority has no place in science.[15][17][18] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.[19]

One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[20] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[21][22] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[23] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,[24][25][22] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[21][26] Even textbooks[21] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[26] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[27]

Appeal to non-authorities[edit]

Fallacious arguments from authority are also frequently the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.[31] An example of the fallacy of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field would be citing Albert Einstein as an authority for a determination on religion when his actual expertise was physics.