prof
“uberwaltz,
Your question is like "how do you know magnetic bracelets don’t work in healing people don’t work if you haven’t tried it?"
Just as a magnetic bracelet is based on medical claims that have no main-stream medical backing and the "evidence" is of the unreliable personal anecdote variety, it’s the same with audiophile fuses.”
>>>>>No, it’s not like magnetic bracelets. Or other odd ball alternative healing remedies. Its not like dowsing. It’s not like sleeping on nails. It’s not like sleeping with a crystal under your pillow. It’s not like radionics. It’s not like UFOs, either. And it’s not like any of the other absurd examples skeptics come up with. Those would all be logical fallacies.
From Zen and the Art of Debunkery,
• Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a pre-emptive holy war against invading hordes of quackery-spouting infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending it.
• Reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such discovery were legitimate, then surely we would already know about it!"
• Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed unorthodox and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example.
And finally, (gdhal are you listening?)
• 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.