Tin foil hat? Do you need one? You don't but you are wearing it already!

 Tin foil hat? Do you need one? You don't but you are wearing it already without your notice.

Yes, most of us are wearing one without noice it. 

Some of us deny that they are wearing one even other people are tell them the truth about it.

I doubt the above guy (picture from wikipedia) could see himself that he is indeed wearing a "tin foil hat" without a proper "mirror"

What is a "Tin foil hat"

According to wikipedia, Tin foil hat - Wikipedia,

A tin foil hat is a hat made from one or more sheets of tin foil or aluminium foil, or a piece of conventional headgear lined with foil, often worn in the belief or hope that it shields the brain from threats such as electromagnetic fields, mind control, and mind reading. The notion of wearing homemade headgear for such protection has become a popular stereotype and byword for paranoia, persecutory delusions, and belief in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.

It is a byword for pseudo science. If you trust anything in pseudo science or based your argument with a pseudo scientific proof, yes, then you are wearing a tin foil hat in your mind. You are indeed thinking like a tin foil hat supporter.

Still not sure about what is "tin foil hat'? Let me give you a few examples. 

Real world "tin foil hat" examples :

Example 1:

Statement 1: "Two different audibly transparent DACs sound the same with the same digital input"

"Scientific" proof: "Based on objective measurements of various attributes of two DACs, the results of these accurate/precise measurements show clearly that people cannot tell the difference. No body can hear below certain dB."

Example 2:

Statement 2: "Hi-Res music and CD-quality music sounds the same based on objective scientific experiment"

"Scientific" proof: "Objective scientific peer-reviewed experiment showed that people cannot tell the difference between CD-quality source vs Hi-Res source of the same music under a through, straightforward double-bind level-matched listening test"

Example 3:

Statement 3: "Hi-Res music with sampling bitrate higher than 44k Hz is useless as no body can hear higher than 22k Hz unless you are a super human"

"Scientific" proof: "Based on the famous sampling theory, it only requires 44k Hz to sample input signal with frequencies up to 22k. With the 44k Hz sampled data, it can perfectly reconstruct the input signal up to 22kHz. Any sampling rate higher than 44k Hz is useless"

Do you believe all these statements wholeheartedly? Do you consider these statements are factual and based on objective scientific evidences? 

Why people are still tricked / fooled by "tin foil hat" in 2024? 

Usually, these tin foil hats are re-packaged under objective scientific umbrella as shown in the above examples.

A lot of, even highly-educated, people would believe in such statements wholeheartedly. 

You may said, "All thesse statments have objective scientific proofs. It shows clearly that they are not something you called pseudo-science! Are you crazy??"

For this, I am pretty sure that I am not crazy (unless you have any proof for that).

I, as professionally trained in Psychology, am sorry to inform you all that:

You are all tricked by these pseudo-science statements.

If you do really believe these statements are true and 

they are all based on "objective scientific evidence", 

you are indeed thinking as a tin foil hat supporter.

"Why?" You may ask...

(a bit of side track: 

"This guy is crazy or mentally blocked!"  <== do you have something like this pop up in your mind. 

If you do, you may just demonstrate perfectly the behaviour of a well-studied area in Psychology known as cognitiive dissonance. i.e.

Sorry for being side tracked a bit. Let's go back to tin foil hat and let me explain more...)

Analysis of Statement 1

Statement 1: "Two different audibly trasnparent DACs sound the same with the same digital input"

Conclusion: Statement 1 is a pseudo science claim

Reasons: 

1. You just assume your measurements capture comprehensively all the attributes of the audio signal reconstruction process. Is there any objective reseach performed to prove that your measurements capture all the attributes?

i.e.

Think about this:

Case 1: digital music => black box 1 (with a set of your measurements) => analog signal output 1

Case 2: same digital music => black box 2 (with 100% same measurements as black box 1) => analog signal output 2

Does statement 1 mean the black box 1 and black box 2 are equivalent in reconstructing the final analog signal? In other words, does statement 1 mean the output 1 is 100% same as ouput 2?

If you think the statment 1 mean "output 1 and ouput 2 are the same", this bring us to other topics. Let's talk about that later.

If you don't think the statement 1 mean "output 1 and output 2 are the same", then look at point 2 below.

2. Did anyone measure the biological electrical signal output from our hearing sensory organ to check if our hearing sensory organ generate the same biological electrical signal for our brain if it is fed with two different audio signal output 1 and output 2.

If there is any objective scientific evidence to prove that our hearing sensory organ does generate the same biological electrical signal for our brain, I would BELIEVE statement 1 is factual and scientific.

Only until then, statement 1 is "a claim based on pseudo science" not factual nor scientific. (Please do let me know if you have other viewpoint, I'd love to hear)

Analysis of Statement 2

Statement 2: "Hi-Res music and CD-quality music sounds the same based on objective scientific experiment"

Conclusion: Statement 2 is a pseudo science claim

Reasons: 

Let's have a look of the last paragraph of the conclusion of the research paper again here:

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades highresolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests

Does it mean "Hi-Res music and CD-quality music sounds the same based on objective scientific experiment" (aka our statement 2)?

If you think it does, please have a look here to check your logical reason. It is the same reasoning method that people may use to claim "ghost does exist!".

Analysis of Statement 3

Statement 3: "Hi-Res music with sampling bitrate higher than 44k Hz is useless as no body can hear higher than 22k Hz unless you are a super human"

Conclusion: Statement 3 is a pseudo science claim

Reasons: 

Yes, you are 100% correct that we don't need to use any sampling rate higher than 44kHz to capture audio signal with frequencies up to 22k Hz.

However, does it mean that "Hi-Res music is useless"?

They are two different concepts. Using the fact that "1+1=2" to show that multiplication is useless is wrong. Period.

Let me repeat one more time: Hi-Res music is not for us to capture analog signal with frequencies higher than 22kHz. For more details, check out this: 768kHz for digital music sampling? Can you hear 384kHz? You're crazy... (no-pseudo-science.blogspot.com)

In sort, the sampling theory does not prove that "Hi-Res music is useless"

Similary, the fact that most people cannot hear frequencies higher than 22k Hz does not prove that "Hi-Res music is useless".

To conclude, any claim that state something like below

"you should not hear any difference because they are measured audibly transparent" 

or  

"Hi-Res music is useless" 

are 

Pseudo Science! 

These claims are based on pseudo science (unless anyone can provide further evidences to support their different views).

These are debunked in my analysis above (please let me know if you don't agree). These claims are just simple Pseudo Scientific Claims! Don't trust these claims!

For the "tin foil hat" supporters, some of them are highly intelligent / educated. They know a lot about science, e.g. the efficiency of a metal enclosure in blocking electromagnetic radiation depends on the thickness of the foil, as dictated by the "skin depth" of the conductor for a particular wave frequency range of the radiation. 

They just have wrong logical reasoning. When they can find out what's wrong in their reasoning? I don't know. It just happens that I know a bit more in this area. I am just doing my best to see if I can be any help.

Did you check if you are wearing a "tin foil hat"?