It's All Dishonest! And how it is related to Pseudo Science...

 It's All Dishonest!


I found the above picture is quite interesting. I saw it on the last post of my thread that discussed Hi-Res music on Head-Fi.org

The last post was added brutelly by the moderator to an already closed thread in order to "conclude" or "summarize" the thread. FYI, the thread was deleted by the moderator and somehow magically re-surfaced as a "closed" thread in a day or two. 

The last post was added about 12 hours later after the thread was re-surfaced as "closed"

I checked the source of the above picture, it was from testbook.com

It defined Intellectual Honesty as:

Hmm... looks to me that the pseudo science creators are indeed showing Intellectual Dishonesty. I believe that most of these pseudo science creators are smart but they are also acting with intellectual dishonesty. 

Why? The pseudo science creators fit the following (at least):

- Being deceptive fudging
- Pretending To Answer Questions While Not Answering Them
- Saying Things That Don't Make Sense But Pretending They Do
- Being Unfair While Pretending To Be Fair

Example 1: "Saying Things That Don't Make Sense But Pretending They Do"

When I explained why the Monty's video is related to "Hi-Res is useless" in my thread, the moderator replied saying that:


Hmm... "He [Monty] wrote that in 2012"? I have no clue how the moderator associated "he wrote that [article] in 2012" with the topic (Hi-Res music is useless) we were discussing on the thread... What's special about 2012? How "he worte that in 2012" related to our discussion topic on the thread???

I did ask the moderator explicitly two times here and here about 2012 but he never reply...



Example 2: "Being Unfair While Pretending To Be Fair"


The quoted "senior" member in the following capture have the same believes as the moderator so the moderator didn't say a word about the user's non-sense replies. No only that, the moderator framed me into his trap with his own illusion and banned me.


I agreed with the moderator that a lot of the comments on the thread are full of intellectual dishonesty.... but who is acting with intellectual dishonesty? I have the answer but I will leave it for you to discover. I bet the one who brutelly added the last post on the thread should know it well.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there any audibly transparent DAC? Yes or no?

Image
 Is there any audibly transparent DAC? Yes or no? TLDR: According to  SMSL SU-10 DAC Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum , the above DAC is considered as "audibly transparent" by those "Audio Science" guys.  Amongst all the DACs they measured (as of today, 8 June 2024), its SINAD is ranked the 1st as shown below: Does it really mean such DAC is audibly transparent? Before we can answer the question, let's look at the definition of "audibly transparent" DAC again. What is the definition of audibly transparent in general public? If you ask the general public who has Hi Fi system at home (here we are talking both Audiophiles and non-Audiophiles general public), they would give you something like the following for the definition of audibly transparent: Audiby Transparent is the holy grail they are looking for. If a DAC is audiby transparent, it means it does not introduce any audible sound of its own and reproduces the audio signal faithfully. In oth...
Read more

Do you see the same color? Why?

Image
They sound the same but why we hear difference??? Do you think if you would demonstrate having  confirmation bias  (a well known human behaviour in  Psychology Studies ) when you participate an objective experiment? I am pretty sure you do. Why? I will explain later. Let's have a quick look of the definition what's confirmation bias before we proceed further: The definition of  Confirmation bias  (from Wiki) is: Confirmation bias  is the  tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior  beliefs  or values . People  display this bias  when they  select information that supports their views ,  ignoring contrary information , or when they  interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes . The effect is strongest for  desired outcomes , for  emotionally  charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias i...
Read more

Fact vs good-enough... Science vs pseudo-science.

Image
Fact vs good-enough... Science vs pseudo-science. TLDR: I came across a thread that discuss 16-bit vs 24-bit in digital music .  Some people said 16-bit is good enough and 24-bit is useless. Some said 24-bit is marketing hype for promoting Hi-Res music and its play-back equipments. Is it true that 24-bit is useless?  Math is the queen of all science .  What does Math tell us? Let's see what the math tell us about 16-bit vs 24-bit: In digital music (PCM-format), the music is quantized at different sampling time. CD uses 16-bit and Hi-Res use 24-bit (or higher). For 16-bit quantization, it divides the full dynamic range into 2^16 levels, i.e. 65,536 levels. For 24-bit quantization, it divides the same full dynamic range into 2^26 levels, i.e. 16,777,216 levels. It is 256 times more than the 16-bit quantization. It is a hard-core fact that 24-bit is inherently better than 16-bit.  I my mind, it is very simple. It is like 1.000 is different than 1.001 Math won't lie; on...
Read more