AutumnCrown
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2015
- Posts
- 262
- Likes
- 71
But it was your fault and nobody elses that your original thread title and first few posts were total bollocks, I can't imagine how these could have been any further away from what you claimed you wanted to discuss. Bluntly, you were being disingenious in subsequently claiming you weren't criticising blind testing, it was only the "heat" you got that made you backtrack, so spare us the guff, your silence on that thread since speaks volumes, there are questions on that thread you haven't answered. I guess the magic disappeared for you once the thread ceased to be a blind test kicking contest.
And nobody was interested in a discussion involving more "could it be's" than several seasons of Ancient Aliens. I wonder why?
According to my dictionary the definition of criticize is "indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way. I was not disaproving of blind tests as a whole. From my perspective, you are just oversensitive to the flaws of blind testing being talked about. Like how reginalb below would have needed it to be a flaw "inherent' in blind testing in order for me to be able to use that phrase... so a flaw that is present in all blind tests (or discussions about blind tests) that have ever been conducted or discussed. That is an absurdly high standard that forces people to walk on eggshells. But hey, if you want Sound Science to stay a cloistered echo chamber that's your choice.
I laid out what I would have liked to hear in one of the final posts, and no one had anything to contribute on those subjects. In my opinion, the reason that no one was interested in discussing "could it be's" was because the people here are probably technicians by training more than scientists, and not because there is a generally agreed upon (outside of this forum) sacred standard of evidence that qualifies or disqualifies a discussion as being worthy of the title "science".
Quote:
It does get tiresome. You still haven't figured out why people were annoyed, just FYI. For example, I would quote something you said, respond to it directly like, line by line response, and you would reply that I wasn't even reading what you were saying. You can't say X=Y then get mad at people for saying, "No it doesn't" with the claim that it's not about Y and X.
But again, if you're trying to describe a flaw of blind testing it has to be a flaw inherent to blind testing. If you are criticizing the design of a particular blind test, that's fine, but you aren't criticizing blind testing, just a flawed implementation of it.
To your first point, that is your opinion. From my point of view, you still haven't figured out how to read my posts and are still confusing territoriality with scientific scruples.