Talk but not walk?

glupson
Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means?

>>>>>Yes, someone does. 🙄

“Pseudo-skepticism (or pseudoscepticism) 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 pseudoskeptics 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]”

- cheers, your humble scribe

prof
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?

>>>>>>Engineering credentials? Whoa! Oh, no! It’s come down to the old I’ll show you mine if you show me yours argument. Another favorite pseudo skeptic ploy. That usually pops up when the combatant has completely run out of ammo. Attack the arguer not the argument. Smooth!

@glupson What is wrong with the Koss Porta Pro?

Nothing! I've yet to hear any headphone that sounds more vivid, more alive in the mids. If ever a product deserved it's classic status it's the Portal Pro's.

The discontinued Jays v-Jays were also brilliant in a similar way.