gdhal
I’m not suggesting that one listens and then comes back to listen 24 hours later. We’re talking a matter of minutes. Those who claim to hear a difference should be able to demonstrate to disbelievers, or they shouldn’t make such claims. Additionally, within the framework of the EXAMPLE PROCEDURE I provided herein in a previous post, I remain open minded to an alternative. Like speaker wire, I’m flexible.
>>>It’s actually a strawman argument to presume that blind tests will demonstrate anything to disbelievers. The plain fact if the matter is nothing can deter the Uber Skeptic from his belief. Not counterargymen, not measurements, not tests. Not ever blind tests, which are for some reason considered sacred by Uber Skeptics. But as we’ve seen all tests, including blind test, can be attached on a number of levels. For one thing nobody agrees on what the protocol of a blind test should be. Therefore, ANY blind test is subject to scrutiny and attack. I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them. That’s your first mistake from which all your other mistakes naturally flow. 😁
Let me conclude with this excerpt from the intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery.
“Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.
As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.”
your friend and humble scribe, GK
I’m not suggesting that one listens and then comes back to listen 24 hours later. We’re talking a matter of minutes. Those who claim to hear a difference should be able to demonstrate to disbelievers, or they shouldn’t make such claims. Additionally, within the framework of the EXAMPLE PROCEDURE I provided herein in a previous post, I remain open minded to an alternative. Like speaker wire, I’m flexible.
>>>It’s actually a strawman argument to presume that blind tests will demonstrate anything to disbelievers. The plain fact if the matter is nothing can deter the Uber Skeptic from his belief. Not counterargymen, not measurements, not tests. Not ever blind tests, which are for some reason considered sacred by Uber Skeptics. But as we’ve seen all tests, including blind test, can be attached on a number of levels. For one thing nobody agrees on what the protocol of a blind test should be. Therefore, ANY blind test is subject to scrutiny and attack. I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them. That’s your first mistake from which all your other mistakes naturally flow. 😁
Let me conclude with this excerpt from the intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery.
“Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.
As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.”
your friend and humble scribe, GK
