The science of opinion ...

Oh wow! I was not aware this was going on from ten years ago. This is copy/paste:

Quote:
I assume after Ethan was unsuccessful in his attempt to intimidate me he called Stereophile and likewise threatened a lawsuit.

No, he didn't threaten a lawsuit. He did try to go over my head to get his forum posting privileges reinstated, and when that didn't work, canceled all of Real Traps advertising in Stereophile. He then filed a complaint about being harassed on this and other forums by posters like "Michigan J. Frog," with the New Milford, CT police department.

He is now trying to get me to delete the posting in which his being banned was announced: http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=82939&Main=82939#Post82939 . I have no intention of deleting this posting.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

@duckworp- " What always amazes me is the question as to what motivates these people? Why do so many people want to spend their short life telling people that they are buying snake oil and telling them to do double blind tests and repeating this ad infinitum. It is pointless. Why do they do it?"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           It’s their desperate attempt at being relevant, perhaps?                                                                                                (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/relevance)                                                                 

I was there for all of that.

The thing about it, is..that..if one actually follows the cutting edge of psychoacoustic research and cutting edge work in acoustics, re scientific articles at places like physorg..

...what one discovers, through doing the hard work of article and research reading and reference sifting...

That the bowls (originally by Franck Tchang) actually DO WORK. AS ADVERTISED.

But, it took years and years to emerge as part of the new knowledge base. It is still filtering and dripping in.

10 years from now, this will all filter down into the average bit of knowledge, for norms in psychoacoustics ,and the fields involved in acoustics. It will be in all the textbooks, to some given degree.

And the people who can't innovate and can only attack things as they are not in the textbooks (dogmatic mindset), those negative proofing mindsets...they’ll be busy attacking the next thing which they don’t understand, things that are emergent and not yet in the textbooks.

And be tossing around the those intellectual flyweight nickel level charlatan and snake oil screams like they were intellectual level manhole covers.

Since, in high end audio, the expectation is the the manufacturers do have the intellectual capacity to bring the new and cutting edge -into the world of audio... it is a given that the dogmatic mindset negative proofing types, they will attack relentlessly. Ad infinitum, as the history of it shows so abundantly.

@teo_audio  Do we have any examples of reformed "dogmatic mindset negative proofing types" and their redemption stories? Likely not to help, given the 'type,' but may make for interesting reading....

How to Clone a Pseudo Skeptic 🤨 🤨 🤨 🤨

1. Assume a condescending air that suggests your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of the science community.

2. Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific.

3. Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.

4. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to exclaim, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!"

5. Insist that the subject device is easily explained by conventional science so there’s no mystery there.

6. Since John Q Public doesn’t appreciate the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to obscure the difference.

7. Use the tried-and-true skeptics expression, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” as much as possible.