Taboo and pseudo science

(This blog is related to my previous blog regarding debunking misleading video)

The more I discuss with other people on-line, the more I feel the relationship between Taboo and Pseudo Science and the strength of their bullying on critical thinking.

If you can still see the discussion I mentioned above, you are lucky as it was hidden by the moderator(s) there in order to avoid people from seeing it on their web site.,

Free speech? No, it is an enemy of psuedo science. Free speech is not allowed, like taboo, in the world of pseudo science.

For the people who cannot see the above discussion (if it is removed totally from the site), let me recap some interesting dialogs in the discussion here: (pink comments are from the moderator, blue are mine)

The following dialogs are referring to my previous blog about the debunking of the "Monty's video"

Moderator: I asked you why you were misrepresenting the information obtained from other websites, and you have not provided a satisfactory explanation.

Point 1: Misrepresenting the information?

Sorry for my ignorance, could you please point out clearly what’s the "misprepresneting the information" that you referred to? I am showing my own interpretation (with my critical thinking) of the graphs from that web site.

I didn’t say the original article agreed my view point. Did it?
Did I say the original article debunk the misleading part of the “Monty’s vidoe”? No, I didn’t. I was me who debunk the video.

Point 2: not provided a satisfactory explanation?

If my previous replies or Point 1 above does not make it clear. Please allow me to do it one more time here:

I used the graphs from the other article to help me to express my own viewpoints. I have no intention to (and I didn’t) say the other article agreed my viewpoints.

I am using a practice that is happening in peer-reviewed research. A lot of research paper quote someone else’s data to support their own viewpoint even the quoted paper may have a totally different intepretation of the data.

i.e. all these graphs I shown are factual. I just have my viewpoint of my own interpretation of the graphs.

Does it make sense to you now? If you are not sure how formal scientific research is done, I’d suggest you to talk to any one who had submitted any reasearch paper to a journal to publish.

Are you satisfied with the above explanation?

If you are still not satisfied with my explanation, please do let me know. I can explain further to make it even more clear to you.

Moderator: Similarly, you have used images of AC waveforms (not cited), which may be subject to copyright

Point 3: My mistake

Sorry, it was my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out as I forgot to quote the source of the graph and I didn’t specify explicitly that the graph is not from audio signal.

I’d updated my blog as below to fix these mistakes:

i.e.
Added the source for the graph I used.
Made it clear the graph is not from any audio signal.

Screenshot 2024-04-30 at 10.46.271784×792 171 KB

Thanks again for reviewing my blog and help to make it perfect. I really need someone like you to point out any mistake I may have on my blog. Thanks

Moderator: In a nutshell, the above, and the fact that you have failed to understand that the “steps” are samples and a DAC reconstructs the original waveform precisely. Indeed, the source you misrepresented states that the digital to analogue conversion “… removes the jagged stair step pattern (the samples), restoring the waveform to a near perfect representation of the original analogue signal.” It’s false to say reputable sources are selling fake science when your argument is full of holes.

Point 4: “NOS Mode” in modern DACs

The “NOS mode” (aka “NOS filter”) in a modern DAC is, by designed, to faithfully reconstruct audio signal from the digitized input signal. People just “assume” a well-designed DAC should remove the jagged stair step pattern, which is incorrect.

Some people need “NOS mode” feature provided by a modern DAC.

My blog is to highlight that a modern DAC does support NOS mode, by designed, to help to faithfully reconstruct the digitized input in the analog audio signal space.

Point 5: Perfect representation of the original analogue signal

This is exactly the point I want to highlight when I showed the following graph in my blog:

source: Waveforms of AC voltage and current for cases 1-4. | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)

The audio signal re-constructed from a modern DAC for a perfect digitized 10k Hz is not perfect. Do you agree?

The audio output is not noise free. Noise is everywhere in the audio output (it would look similar to the above graph (for AC waveforms) if the noise level in the analogy audio signal is high enough for you to see easily)

Moderator: It’s false to say reputable sources are selling fake science

Point 6: Reputable source equals factual?

To me, with my critical thinking, a reputable source does not mean all it said are factual.

(By the way, I didn’t say all the contents of the video are incorrect. In fact, I found some parts are quite interesting)

For any pseudo science claim, there must be some “supportive” scientific facts to support the claim otherwise people would spot out the pseudo science claim easily.

In my blog, I want to highlight the following:

1. Most Modern DACs do support NOS mode by designed. With such mode, people could get stair-step analog audio waveform output. <== factual
   Do you agree the above is factual?
   (note: “most” here mean DACs based on the latest AKM DAC chips, Cirrus Logic DAC chips)

2. Pseudo Science Claim: From the “Monty’s video”, it attempts to deliver a message that you don’t have to care as there is “no way” a DAC would have such output <=== not ture.
   Do you agree the claim is misleading?

3. The audito output for a perfectly digitized sine wave is not a perfect sine wave. <== factual
   Do you agree it is factual?

4. Pseudo Science Claim: The “Monty’s video” suggested that with 44.1kHz/16 bit digitized input, you would get a perfect sine wave from the audio signal from a DAC <=== not true
   Do you agree it is mis-leading?
   (It would be my mistake if the video just suggested that the audio output would be something looks like a perfect sine wave)

Moderator: your argument is full of holes

Point 7: full of holes?

Looks like you didn’t fully understand my blog. After reading all the points above, I hope these points make you clear what’s wrong with the “Monty’s video”.

If you still think my blog is still full of holes, it would be great if you can point them out so that I can fix it (if there is any).

Bottom line: I don’t want to give out any incorrect information on my blog

Moderator: This forum requests that you only post your original content

Point 8: Originality

I believe all the view points on my blog are my own ones after I analyzed all the information I collected with my own critical thinking.

If you considering using others’ graph to draw my own conclusion is not original, then I would have no more words to say regarding “originality”. We just have a different defintions of it.

In that case, I believe I have to create very similar graphs (showing the stair-step waveform with a modern DAC in NOS mode) myself before I can even talk about it. Is it correct from your understading of “originality”?

Moderator: among other things, refrain from engaging in clickbait or megaphoning

Point 9: clickbait

 Sorry for my ignorance. In my previous posts, I do include links to my blog (which is not for any profit) as I don’t want to copy-and-paste my whole blog here ng using others’ graph to draw my own conclusion is not original, then I would have no more words to say regarding “originality”. We just have a different defintions of it.

If you think that we should not post anything with a link here, I think it is ok as this is a site managed by you and your team. You can manange the site with your own judgement (and that’s the exact reason why I created my own blog instead of using other’s system)

In that case, may I ask, would that be ok if I copy-and-paste my whole article here without any link. Would you consider it is good or you still think it is not appropriate?

Moderator: To avoid ambiguity, any disciplinary measures the moderators may impose are determined by your conduct and your compliance with the community guidelines, not because we disagree with you.

Understood.

100% totally agree and respect your and/or your team’s decision. Feel free to take any action with my posts or my account accordingly based on your judgement.

Note: I understand sometimes it is hard to accept facts that are not "compatible" what the "facts" in your mind. However, I don't think keeping someone silent would make your "facts" become facts.

disclaimer: For that forum site owners / moderators, please do let me know if you want to have this blog removed. Thanks. (note: the first picture above is from google)

==== update 30 April ====