How Science Got Sound Wrong

Thank you for further contributing to the spreading of misinformation clearthink. When You can prove anything that I have said is wrong, instead of just throwing ad-hominems, maybe I will take your posts seriously. Until then, you are just bloviating in the wind.

It’s really weird why so many people fight so hard to discredit someone, and spend so little time discrediting what they say. Is that because you can’t?  I really must think that is it.

clearthink971 posts11-18-2019 1:46pm
atdavid"It’s a full time job keeping up with the misinformation being spread "

With more than 375 posts in less than 30 days of membership hear you are doing an excellent job of contributing to the misinformation even if you are correct about 15% of the time.

atdavid"When You can prove anything that I have said is wrong, instead of just throwing ad-hominems, maybe I will take your posts seriously. Until then, you are just bloviating in the wind.


"You have repeatedly and consistently shown to be factually wrong and materially deceptive in many posts. You have only been hear a short while so it is easy to review your posts and identify those where you are in error I understand why you are uncomfortable with you’re mistakes being so frequently disproven and rendered uselss but as I kindly pointed out you are correct about 15% of the time!

I don't think the assertions about timing resolution are remotely accurate.

An alternate perspective:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-warning-there-is-a-new-web-article-going-aroud-that-is-a-crock-of-schmidt.9511/

ahofer,

To be clear, you mean the assertions in the linked article are not remotely accurate?  I only ask that because people will read only the few words you wrote and hear what they want to think ;-)


I looked up the author and sent an email directly showing where he was wrong. I also invited a former colleague to contact him/the website as he has more academic clout than I do. Nice, but unfortunate that I am not the only one that saw through the fallacies of the article.

Okay hotshot, Mr. "clear"think.  I am correct about 15% of the time huh?   That is called an ad hominem. Look it up if you don't understand what the word means. It is an ad hominem as it is an attack on me, but not on anything that I have actually posted. You will be hard pressed to show even once where I am incorrect, let alone 85% of my posts. I will never claim to be perfect, but I know what I know.   Oh, and please do learn what the word, "Evidence" means before trying to make some silly claims of where I am wrong. 

clearthink972 posts11-18-2019 3:53pm
"You have repeatedly and consistently shown to be factually wrong and materially deceptive in many posts. You have only been hear a short while so it is easy to review your posts and identify those where you are in error I understand why you are uncomfortable with you’re mistakes being so frequently disproven and rendered uselss but as I kindly pointed out you are correct about 15% of the time!