One of red flags of Pseudo Science: Double Standards

One of red flags of Pseudo Science: Double Standards

TLDR:

Double Standards is not a single indicator to show Pseudo Science but it should help you to put a red flag in your Pseudo Science alert.

Is peer-reviewed research important in Audio Science? Have a look of a reply from a "peacekeeper": 

Yes, I agreed peer-reviewed results formed the building stones for modern science. We trust peer-reviewed research more than anything else (for objective scientific analysis). 

(BTW, a forum called itself as "Audio Science Review" does not mean they are indeed talking about science. The forum is indeed known as "cult community" to be exact. Naming is another art of Pseudo Science.)

However, the very same "peacekeeper" applied a different standard when he is challenged about not using peer-reviewed system:

"A lower level of significance/confidence than a professional or scientific (peer reviewed) result"? What he is talking about? lower level?

If you really knew what is statistics, or to be exact, hypothesis testing, you would know that for questionable hypothesis (i.e. questionable claim), its testing result is just having "a lower level of significance/confidence than a professional or scientific (peer reviewed) result"...

Here the same peacekeeper applies the famous "same but not absolute" principle (i.e. approximation) to rigorous science subject.

In his mind, he can just "cherry pick" rigious peer-reviewed results or "lower level of significance results" depends on his "use case" (i.e. applying double standards). He can only win in any case. By using his double standards, questionable claim would be treated like rigorous scientific claim.

Is this his blind spot? Based on my interaction with this particular peacekeeper, it looks to me that he truly believes what he is doing is right. When can he wake up? Hmm... not sure. 

IMO, he is knowledgeable but he has a serious issue about double standards and logical reasoning. If he can wake up, he would definitely be the asset of the authethic Audio Science community (i.e. not the cult community he is in right now)

He is a typical peacekeeper in these "audio science forums". 

ASR is the nest and seedbed of these peacekeepers (aka pseudo scientists) 

I am happy to see smart people (who has very good critical thinking) are still around in Head-Fi.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"The expert in 'the Monty's video' shows clearly Hi-Res is useless; you won't get stair step audio signal output from CD"....Well, let's check together to find out!

Image
 " The 'Monty's video' shows Hi-Res is useless. The expert said you won't get stair step audio signal ..." I bet the above video , also known as "the Monty's video", is quite famous amongst the supporters who turly believe that " Hi-Res is useless". Whenever these supporters were questioned why "Hi-Res is useless", some of them would just show you that "scientific proof". Some supporter even made another YouTube video to support the very same "scientific" claim based on the same "Monty's video" (as they considered all the things the Monty's video said is factual). The supporter named his video as " Debunking the Digital Audio Myth: The Truth About the 'Stair-Step' Effect " A lot of these supporters may asked, "With so many experts on YouTube demonstrating so clearly with the help of a bunch of   lab equipments and doing various experiments in front of our eyes ,
Read more

768kHz for digital music sampling? Can you hear 384kHz? You're crazy...

Image
Do I want to hear up to 384kHz? LOL... of course not 😂 768kHz sampling is for something else... ( TL;DR ) The number one mis-understanding of why using Hi-Res music is:       " why we need to to hear frequencies that fall in the ultrasonic range (i.e. higher than 22kHz for most people)???" If you asked similar question or answered someone's question like below, then you are pretty much belong to a group of people who don't know what's Hi-Res music is. Hi-Res music is, in fact, to help your DAC to reconstruct better audio output for the audible range (yes, it is for the frequencies BELOW 22kHz with 768kHz sampling)... (It is a  real dialogue  as I just saw it today in an Audio Science forum) Someone asked: Ma ny DACs descriptions enhance in capital letters 32/768 kHz resolution. Is there any domain when such a resolution may be justified ?   Other (more experienced member) replied: Can you think of a circumstance where you'd even want a dynamic range of over
Read more

You should not hear it! It is your brain fooling you!

Image
You should not hear it! It is your brain fooling you! Well... but... but... I really do hear it. This is the following up of the previous blog:  Confirmation bias. Do you have it? My previous blog was based on the following picture (you don't have to read my previous blog before reading this one): If you see 4 boxes with graident of different greyscales in the middle column. Great, you don't have any confirmation bias .  What if I told you that there are something wrong with your vision, as you SHOULD see 4 different static grey color boxes instead of gradients.  The following picture show you the second box is actually a static grey color box (this is the actual capture of the second box in the above picture, you can try to capture it and see for yourself): You may say, " Cool, now, I know I got tricked by my visual perception ".  AFTER  knowing the fact that all the 4 boxes in the middle column of the first picture are indeed just static grey boxes (instead of
Read more