Bryon,
Of course I would never say or imply that all of the points in Zen and the Art of Debunkery apply to all scientists or to any one person. I think it would be a fair statement to say, however, that many of the "arguments" presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery actually do apply to many of the debates on audio forums, especially those concerning controversial tweaks, like the directionality of fuses or fuses in general. I suspect you will find many of the "strawman arguments" in ZATAOD are used commonly by Skeptics and OBjectivusts in these debates and other debates. I do not intend to suggest anyone is in need of medical or psychological help just because they use fallacious arguments. But it is what it is, I am only pointing out that such lines of argument exist here - whether intentional or not.
Almarg said,
"The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination...
Zen and the Art of Debunkery:
<> If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality might itself constitute a mass hallucination.
The general idea of Zen and the Art of Debunkery is that that anyone, even a scientist, especially a renowned scientist, or a well-published scientist, can sit in the comfort of his easy chair and attack a controversial subject, like directionality of fuses, or what have you, from a number of angles. From a rhetorical perspective, i suppose this tactic can convince a non scientist his argument must be correct. You know, the "old science is on my side" argument. "I know a scientist and milk shot out of his nose when I told him what audiophiles believe." lol
I suspect the arguments presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery are probably intended to represent those who feel threatened - or feel that the scientific community is threatened - by something that cannot be explained, like UFOs - "It disobeys all known laws of science, the people who report the phenomenon are either hallucinating, cannot conduct proper scientific tests, are easily fooled or are in need of medical help".
The skeptical community and the scientific community are excellent in constructing arguments, including fallacious (Strawman) arguments, that appear to be intended to halt scientific investigation. But Isn't the scientific method, especially investigation, the underlying requirement for arriving at the truth?
Additional bullets from Zen and the Art of Debunkery for your consideration.
<> Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries!
<> Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)
<> Similarly, reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such were true, we would would already know about it!"
Geoff
Of course I would never say or imply that all of the points in Zen and the Art of Debunkery apply to all scientists or to any one person. I think it would be a fair statement to say, however, that many of the "arguments" presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery actually do apply to many of the debates on audio forums, especially those concerning controversial tweaks, like the directionality of fuses or fuses in general. I suspect you will find many of the "strawman arguments" in ZATAOD are used commonly by Skeptics and OBjectivusts in these debates and other debates. I do not intend to suggest anyone is in need of medical or psychological help just because they use fallacious arguments. But it is what it is, I am only pointing out that such lines of argument exist here - whether intentional or not.
Almarg said,
"The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination...
Zen and the Art of Debunkery:
<> If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality might itself constitute a mass hallucination.
The general idea of Zen and the Art of Debunkery is that that anyone, even a scientist, especially a renowned scientist, or a well-published scientist, can sit in the comfort of his easy chair and attack a controversial subject, like directionality of fuses, or what have you, from a number of angles. From a rhetorical perspective, i suppose this tactic can convince a non scientist his argument must be correct. You know, the "old science is on my side" argument. "I know a scientist and milk shot out of his nose when I told him what audiophiles believe." lol
I suspect the arguments presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery are probably intended to represent those who feel threatened - or feel that the scientific community is threatened - by something that cannot be explained, like UFOs - "It disobeys all known laws of science, the people who report the phenomenon are either hallucinating, cannot conduct proper scientific tests, are easily fooled or are in need of medical help".
The skeptical community and the scientific community are excellent in constructing arguments, including fallacious (Strawman) arguments, that appear to be intended to halt scientific investigation. But Isn't the scientific method, especially investigation, the underlying requirement for arriving at the truth?
Additional bullets from Zen and the Art of Debunkery for your consideration.
<> Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries!
<> Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)
<> Similarly, reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such were true, we would would already know about it!"
Geoff
