Quote:
Always nice to see someone take the time to memorize Zen and the Art of Debunkery. My hats off to you, your skill in presenting illogical arguments has become second nature.

Not familiar with Zen and the art of debunkery. Was that the follow up to Zen and the art of motorcycle repair?

What illogical arguments would you be refering to?

"Not familiar with Zen and the art of debunkery. Was that the follow up to Zen and the art of motorcycle repair?"

Not quite. It's a treatise on, uh, pathological skepticism, pardon my French.

"What illogical arguments would you be refering to?"

ZATAOD contains most of the illogical arguments you and other, uh, skeptics, tend to use. Now you know where they come from...

Zen and the Art of Debunkery

Cheers

Quote:
"Not familiar with Zen and the art of debunkery. Was that the follow up to Zen and the art of motorcycle repair?"

Not quite. It's a treatise on, uh, pathological skepticism, pardon my French.

"What illogical arguments would you be refering to?"

ZATAOD contains most of the illogical arguments you and other, uh, skeptics, tend to use. Now you know where they come from...

Zen and the Art of Debunkery

Cheers

But I wasn't even aware of Zen and the art of debunkery much less a co-author. How could it contain "my illogical arguments?" Perhaps you could cite some "illogical arguments" that I actually authored.

"But I wasn't even aware of Zen and the art of debunkery much less a co-author. How could it contain "my illogical arguments?" Perhaps you could cite some "illogical arguments" that I actually authored."

There's only so much time in the day so I respectfully decline to point out the errors of your ways. Skeptics, by and large, believe their arguments are valid and original, when in fact they are usually neither. Their arguments have all been made before. This is why Zen and the Art of Debunkery is so interesting -- it is a compendium of all the fallacious arguments that dyed-in-the-wool skeptics use. You know, like "my friend is a PhD and he laughed at the idea that cables make a difference."

I'm pretty confident you will find Zen and the Art of Debunkery invaluable in your vigorous pursuit of hobgoblins in the night.

Quote:
"But I wasn't even aware of Zen and the art of debunkery much less a co-author. How could it contain "my illogical arguments?" Perhaps you could cite some "illogical arguments" that I actually authored."

There's only so much time in the day so I respectfully decline to point out the errors of your ways. Skeptics, by and large, believe their arguments are valid and original, when in fact they are usually neither. Their arguments have all been made before. This is why Zen and the Art of Debunkery is so interesting -- it is a compendium of all the fallacious arguments that dyed-in-the-wool skeptics use. You know, like "my friend is a PhD and he laughed at the idea that cables make a difference."

I'm pretty confident you will find Zen and the Art of Debunkery invaluable in your vigorous pursuit of hobgoblins in the night.

I see. You have the time to post on an hourly basis but you haven't got the time to point out any specific arguments by me that are illogical. That actually does make sense. Finding something that doesn't exist would take a bit more time than posturing about it. But hey you know that. You are just pretending to be critical of skeptical thought.
Geoff, why bother? Even if you came clean and let all your followers know they have been punked they wouldn't believe it. they'd think you had been kidnapped or forced at gun point.

Hey, there's an idea. Think of the fun. Tell your followers the truth and I'll say you've been forced by "people in power" to say those things. People love to follow martyrs as much as they love conspiracies. You could give em both!

Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. When cornered you always revert to your old, tried-and-true tactics, Mr. Troll -- name-calling and inuendo. They were right on the money when they coined the term, "pathological skepticism." I saw you coming a mile away.

Tootles

Quote:
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. When cornered you always revert to your old, tried-and-true tactics, Mr. Troll -- name-calling and inuendo. They were right on the money when they coined the term, "pathological skepticism." I saw you coming a mile away.

Tootles

I thought Geoff was your name. Sorry if I offended you by calling you Geoff. maybe I was a bit out of line with that one.

ORIGINAL QUOTE
"Anybody try the Bikram room treament yet? It's the hot new tweak."

This crew try something? Yer kidding, right? We don't investigate, we castigate. Keeps things simple.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT'S QUOTE
Fair enough. I have to admit there are a lot of things I haven't tried. Here is a short list

1. Scientology
2. Holistic medicine
3. Power crystals
4. The Moonies
5. Hale Bob suicide pacts complete with new Nikes
6. recreational drugs
7. Jumping off a cliff even though Johnny did it.
8. Eating broken glass
9. Steriods
10. Bull riding
Remember. It's a short list.

I know I know, I'm soooo closed minded.

----------------------------------------------------
Scott, let me help you out. See if you can find your "arguments" and clever zingers in the list below, courtesy Zen and the Art of Debunkery. There are lots more you can choose from.

1. Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects
are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the
*process* of science with the *content* of science.

2. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say
with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such
ridiculous claims!"

3. Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with
*all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and
critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition,
inspiration, exploration and integration.

4. At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is
familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore
irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

5. Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all
phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their
proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. Then put on
a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my
case."

6. Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single
most effective weapon in the war against discovery and
innovation. By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule
constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can raise
the level of objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which
any investigation is conducted.

7. Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots.
Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them
that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic
phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is
not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

Cheers,
---------------------
Geoff Kait,
Machina Dynamica

"Anybody try the Bikram room treament yet? It's the hot new tweak."

There are apparently 26 positions involved in the Bikram technique. I'm only guessing here, but is grabbing your ankles while walking around the room your favorite? Am I close?

>>> "3. Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration." <<<

What is missing from that last quote, Geoff, (in addition to exploration) is 'experiences' !!

Scott makes his position quite clear with his response "The "experiences" are not up for debate IMO."

If Scott's position is that people's "experiences" are NOT up for debate then I don't really understand why he ever participated in the Audio Asylum pages or why he is now participating in the Stereophile pages !!! I would have thought that people's listening "experiences" are 'part and parcel' of listening to audio (i e listening to MUSIC) !!!

Take Scott's position regarding people's "experiences" and compare that to such as KBK's position. From the way KBK writes, one gets the impression that he (KBK) is very interested in other people's 'experiences' (as evidenced by his "I've seen people that have good ears and an open mind who have never spent one second of their lives falling for any crap..I've seen those people pick up one of those Schumann generators on demo, from a dealer..and within a few weeks of playing with it...become fully blown converts.

I've not tried one myself, but I'm interested in giving it a shot. I've no idea what they may do or not do.") !!!!!

I am also sure, from the way he writes, that KBK is just as interested in Srajan Ebaen's "experiences" with the Synergistic Devices and Blackbody devices and would NOT dismiss those "experiences" as originating from Hocus Pocus, nor would he dismiss John Atkinson's and Paul Messenger's "experiences" hearing the effect of the Synergistic devices nor dismiss Alanwc's "experiences" using the Blackbody devices recently described.

KBK has stated his position very well :-

Quote by KBK :-
>>> "Truth be known I'm one of the most open mined people on this forum and due to being open minded I've discovered a massive amount of things that the closed minded (individual mental wiring type) will never see, understand, or perceive. This allows me to go even further down that road to levels that are beyond what you see here in the audio world, and that includes even the most freaky seeming stuff you see here.

There have been times that I see a tweak and I think that the creator(inventor) really has no clue or handle on the origins of what it is they are hawking - but they hawk it anyway. Or that it might be bull. But I keep an open mind and try to correlate all the different pieces of data I may come across,and I keep everything and anything I've ever heard of or come across at the tip of my mind in order to try and fit these different pieces of puzzles together. I throw no data of any kind away, ever.

For if I have puzzle in front of me that I don't understand then it only serves to reason that the data which explains it is not going to be found in the mainstream data sets, as then someone would have 'got' it already. Basically the cutting edge of any scientific endeavor will NEVER, NEVER, EVER be in any textbook. Clues that point the way will maybe be there, but that's about it.

And if you want to understand anything new then you read and understand what is in the textbooks and then throw them away and step out --into the new. It really is that simple." <<<

*******************

I could not have put it any better myself, KBK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although regarding your last sentence, KBK, MY words would be "If you want to understand anything new then you read and understand what is in the textbooks and then PUT those text books back on the shelf and step out - into the new !!!!!" Basic knowledge is basic knowledge and is not 'thrown away' but added to. We humbly stand on the shoulders of the giants who preceded us and can (should be able to) then see further !! Or NOT if you prefer to ignore and not debate other people's "experiences" !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
ORIGINAL QUOTE
"Anybody try the Bikram room treament yet? It's the hot new tweak."

This crew try something? Yer kidding, right? We don't investigate, we castigate. Keeps things simple.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT'S QUOTE
Fair enough. I have to admit there are a lot of things I haven't tried. Here is a short list

1. Scientology
2. Holistic medicine
3. Power crystals
4. The Moonies
5. Hale Bob suicide pacts complete with new Nikes
6. recreational drugs
7. Jumping off a cliff even though Johnny did it.
8. Eating broken glass
9. Steriods
10. Bull riding
Remember. It's a short list.

I know I know, I'm soooo closed minded.

----------------------------------------------------
Scott, let me help you out. See if you can find your "arguments" and clever zingers in the list below, courtesy Zen and the Art of Debunkery. There are lots more you can choose from.

1. Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects
are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the
*process* of science with the *content* of science.

2. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say
with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such
ridiculous claims!"

3. Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with
*all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and
critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition,
inspiration, exploration and integration.

4. At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is
familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore
irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

5. Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all
phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their
proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. Then put on
a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my
case."

6. Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single
most effective weapon in the war against discovery and
innovation. By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule
constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can raise
the level of objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which
any investigation is conducted.

7. Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots.
Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them
that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic
phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is
not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

Cheers,
---------------------
Geoff Kait,
Machina Dynamica

My goodness all that effort and all you found was my one joke about not trying things? Wow, that was impressive. You come off as quite convincing and sincere in this post. I do appreciate the sublime dubious connection you make between "practicing debunkery-by-association. Lumping together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice." And my admission to never having tried bull riding. That connection is quite funny. Was that bit of humor on purpose or a happy accident?

Quote:
>>> "3. Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration." <<<

What is missing from that last quote, Geoff, (in addition to exploration) is 'experiences' !!

Scott makes his position quite clear with his response "The "experiences" are not up for debate IMO."

If Scott's position is that people's "experiences" are NOT up for debate then I don't really understand why he ever participated in the Audio Asylum pages or why he is now participating in the Stereophile pages !!! I would have thought that people's listening "experiences" are 'part and parcel' of listening to audio (i e listening to MUSIC) !!!

So one needs to debate other peopels' experiences May? In order to legitimately participate in either forum I should argue with others about *their* perceptions?

OK, so maybe the bull riding crack was mildly funny, but the Hale Bop/Nike crack was funnier. But I thought you Hollywood types were supposed to be really funny. If you're determined to be a troll with a sense of humor you'll have to try harder.

Quote:
OK, so maybe the bull riding crack was mildly funny, but the Hale Bop/Nike crack was funnier. But I thought you Hollywood types were supposed to be really funny. If you're determined to be a troll with a sense of humor you'll have to try harder.

Once you have to explain the joke it has already been killed.

Back on topic: We never got a report on your visit to audition the resonators. What's up with that?

Quote:
Back on topic: We never got a report on your visit to audition the resonators. What's up with that?

Is Ted back in town? I didn't want to comment behind his back.

Ya know, it's supposed to be in-de-pend-ent. Is he needed for damage control? Spin control?

Quote:
Ya know, it's supposed to be in-de-pend-ent. Is he needed for damage control? Spin control?

He is not needed for anything. It is out of courtesy that I prefer to give my impressions somewhere other than behind his back.

Sounds to me like this experiment might have gone belly up...

Quote:
Sounds to me like this experiment might have gone belly up...

It was a mere audtion not an experiment.

Just a correction Guiseppe,

The quote you have just credited me with :-
>>> "And if you want to understand anything new then you read and understand what is in the textbooks and then throw them away and step out --into the new. It really is that simple." <<<

Was KBK's quote !!

I then suggested altering KBK's quote to read ""If you want to understand anything new then you read and understand what is in the textbooks and then PUT those text books back on the shelf and step out - into the new !!!!!"

I had suggested altering KBK's sentence because I would not advocate "throwing away the text books". Such as basic capacitance, resistance, inductance etc would not be altered by what discoveries Peter and I and others have subsequently made and you would definitely need basic theory and knowledge to make such as a radio receiver, or Faraday's inductance motor !!!

OUR concept behind our work is not what effect those things might be 'having on the audio signal' but what effect those things might be 'having on/in the listening environment' !!! The answers to which are NOT in the conventional electronic and acoustic theory text books !!! If such knowledge WAS in the text books, there would be no controversy - all would be understood !!!!

Thanks for the insight into the exploration path (paths) Synergistic (Ted Denney) have travelled - I had not idea of their background work behind the products !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
Just a correction Guiseppe,

The quote you have just credited me with :-
>>> "And if you want to understand anything new then you read and understand what is in the textbooks and then throw them away and step out --into the new. It really is that simple." <<<

Was KBK's quote !!

I then suggested altering KBK's quote to read ""If you want to understand anything new then you read and understand what is in the textbooks and then PUT those text books back on the shelf and step out - into the new !!!!!"

I had suggested altering KBK's sentence because I would not advocate "throwing away the text books". Such as basic capacitance, resistance, inductance etc would not be altered by what discoveries Peter and I and others have subsequently made and you would definitely need basic theory and knowledge to make such as a radio receiver, or Faraday's inductance motor !!!

OUR concept behind our work is not what effect those things might be 'having on the audio signal' but what effect those things might be 'having on/in the listening environment' !!! The answers to which are NOT in the conventional electronic and acoustic theory text books !!! If such knowledge WAS in the text books, there would be no controversy - all would be understood !!!!

Thanks for the insight into the exploration path (paths) Synergistic (Ted Denney) have travelled - I had not idea of their background work behind the products !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Actually bias effects in audio is very much in the text books. Until you eliminate this as a possible mechanism then you are faced with the problem of claiming mysterious causes in lew of common established causes with zero evidential support. As soon as you delve into cause you have moved past human perception which is subjective and moved into the objective world where claims can be tested. If you wish to assert that bias effects are not the mechanism then the onus is on you to show it with objective varifiable tests. Otherwise the status is as stated.

Personally I don't care one way or the other about the mechanisms. I am all about the perceptions. If audiophiles like what they get with Belt tweeks or any other "contraversial" tweek that is cool with me. You want to talk about mechanisms of cause then you better be able to back up your claims with something more than your personal perceptions.