How Science Got Sound Wrong

I don't think the assertions about timing resolution are remotely accurate.

An alternate perspective:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-warning-there-is-a-new-web-article-going-aroud-that-is-a-crock-of-schmidt.9511/

ahofer,

To be clear, you mean the assertions in the linked article are not remotely accurate?  I only ask that because people will read only the few words you wrote and hear what they want to think ;-)


I looked up the author and sent an email directly showing where he was wrong. I also invited a former colleague to contact him/the website as he has more academic clout than I do. Nice, but unfortunate that I am not the only one that saw through the fallacies of the article.

Okay hotshot, Mr. "clear"think.  I am correct about 15% of the time huh?   That is called an ad hominem. Look it up if you don't understand what the word means. It is an ad hominem as it is an attack on me, but not on anything that I have actually posted. You will be hard pressed to show even once where I am incorrect, let alone 85% of my posts. I will never claim to be perfect, but I know what I know.   Oh, and please do learn what the word, "Evidence" means before trying to make some silly claims of where I am wrong. 

clearthink972 posts11-18-2019 3:53pm
"You have repeatedly and consistently shown to be factually wrong and materially deceptive in many posts. You have only been hear a short while so it is easy to review your posts and identify those where you are in error I understand why you are uncomfortable with you’re mistakes being so frequently disproven and rendered uselss but as I kindly pointed out you are correct about 15% of the time!

Allow your friend and humble narrator to summarize: atdavid is never wrong and it’s everybody else who doesn’t understand. 🤗

Here is an example of being wrong. "Geoffkait claims he is a theoretical physicist .. it’s right in these forums. Then geoffkait claims he never said he had a degree in theoretical physics". atdavid proves that geoffkait actually has a degree in aeronautical engineering (check UVA records), then proves geoffkait actually wrote that he had a degree in theoretical physics (he wrote that in a forum). See, that is called addressing the content and proving a claim to be wrong.


atdavid makes a "claim". geoffkait’s response, "you’re wrong" and "you cut and paste from wikipedia", etc. No proof that atdavid’s claims are wrong, and usually an ad-hominem.


Notice a difference?  geoffkait and a clique of others like to tell me (and others) that they are wrong, but unsurprisingly, can never show how we are wrong.