[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Ypu opened the "snake oil" thread with
and currawong closed it by quoting the forum rules:
It isn't all that hard to understand is it?
 

 
I certainly don't understand the inclusion of the word "placebo" on the list of derogatory words.
 
se

 

[xnor]

Sometimes listeners (patients) given an identically performing or ineffective audio product (inert pill) will still experience a perceived improvement in sound quality (medical condition) - the placebo effect.
 
How is that a weasel or derogatory word?

 

[julian67]

What have "credentials" to do with anything? An argument stands or falls on its own merits, or lack thereof, not whether or not the one making the argument has "credentials." Some of the biggest quacks and charlatans have had "credentials."

se

It has to be spelled out?

Example: in medical matters a doctor's opinion carries more weight than a layman's opinion because it is supported by credentials. Credentials attest to knowledge and experience or expertise, They demonstrate that those qualities have been examined and found present and satisfactory. Credentials attest to credibility.

Opinions backed by credentials carry more weight than other opinions. If Bill Gates offered an opinion on running a philanthropic enterprise or Richard Stallman offered an opinion on how to write a C compiler I would pay attention to them because they have credentials and hence credibility. If an anonymous person on the www offered me the same opinions I would probably want to test those opinions rather more. If those same opinions are offered without credentials but with insults, anger and sleight of hand then the bearer's credibility is zero and the opinion is of no interest or value.

Reasoned arguments may stand or fall on their merits. Name calling, accusations, insults, misleading retrospective edits and special pleading and all the rest do not constitute a reasoned argument.

If people want to present themselves as champions of reason and science but have no credentials they should at least attempt acting rationally and reasonably.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

It has to be spelled out?

Example: in medical matters a doctor's opinion carries more weight than a layman's opinion because it is supported by credentials. Credentials attest to knowledge and experience or expertise, They demonstrate that those qualities have been examined and found present and satisfactory. Credentials attest to credibility.

 
Yet there is no shortage of quacks and charlatans out there with medical degrees and other "credentials." In fact these people exploit the fact that many people will give them greater credibility because of those "credentials."
 
Quote:

Opinions backed by credentials carry more weight than other opinions.

 
Not in any reasoned, deductive argument they don't.
 
Quote:

Reasoned arguments may stand or fall on their merits. Name calling, accusations, insults, misleading retrospective edits and special pleading and all the rest do not constitute a reasoned argument.

 
And yet your statement that "A small group of people pose as self-appointed guardians of science despite having no credentials of any kind" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against those who may lack "credentials."
 
se

 

[julian67]

I offered no criticism of people who support their position with reason or verifiable claims.

I did offer an observation of those who claim reason and objectivity while displaying little or none of those qualities, and pointed out they have no credentials. I didn't accuse anyone of lying or call anyone nasty names. If you think that is ad-hominem so be it.

Not in any reasoned, deductive argument they don't.

But "Sound Science" doesn't host much in the way of reasoned, deductive argument. A case in point was Greenleaf7's "snake oil" thread. It was just mockery. It may be that all the products deserve mockery but is that science? A scientific approach would surely involve at least some analysis and criticism of claims made? Pointing and laughing is no more scientific than name calling. The only informative post in the whole thread was bigshot's explaining to me how and why vinyl flatteners aren't as good an idea as they seemed to me.

Credentials may matter in a debate where there is an impasse. Science and reason don't exclude disagreement or guarantee that a universally accepted solution or resolution is always possible.

 

[bigshot]

Expressing purely subjective opinion is apparently "an attack on Sound Science"!

I think it's more irrelevant than an attack. Honestly, I don't care if people come here claiming that the moon is made of green cheese as long as they have the intellectual honesty to accept the inevitable response to a claim like that in a forum dedicated to science.

 

[bigshot]

Example: in medical matters a doctor's opinion carries more weight than a layman's opinion because it is supported by credentials. Credentials attest to knowledge and experience or expertise, They demonstrate that those qualities have been examined and found present and satisfactory. Credentials attest to credibility.

Opinions backed by credentials carry more weight than other opinions..

That is the classic logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority". An argument is just as strong as its supporting points. Who is making the argument doesn't matter.

 

[bigshot]

One point I think isn't obvious... Just because the same names are seen posting in this group, that doesn't mean that we are all there is. I get emails all the time from lurkers thanking me and asking my opinions on things. This community has a strong, quiet contingent that appreciates it.

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

The behaviour in Sound Science recently is honestly disgusting and as far from actual science as the very things people here seem to be against.  

 
"Actual" scientists can be petty and mean, too. Is that the behavior you dislike? There is plenty of it all over head-fi, in spades.
 
I'm not really sure what rhetorical point you are trying to make.
 
 

A case in point was Greenleaf7's "snake oil" thread. It was just mockery. It may be that all the products deserve mockery but is that science? 

 

 
I'd be far happier if this subforum was called "the skeptic's corner" or something similar. That said, I don't see the value in criticism of the subforum's discourse. The point is to keep this stuff here rather than elsewhere, isn't it? 
 
If we were to condemn every sub-forum because of some poorly thought out, mean, or just plain petty posts, there wouldn't be sub-forum left standing.

 

[julian67]

That is the classic logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority".

No it isn't.

It is absolutely 100% not the case that a doctor's medical opinion being given more credence than a layperson's is illustrative of the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority""!

The "appeal to authority" fallacy would be present if the credentials didn't attest to relevant expertise.

Arguments from authority are not necessarily fallacious or unreasonable. To assume that any appeal to authority is a fallacious appeal is mistaken.

The most entertaining false claim to authority is the one that goes something like "I am objective and so are my buddies and if you disagree with us we will shout you down, accuse you of dishonesty, insult you and complain about you. We know we are objective and reasonable and right because we checked with each other and we are."

 

[bigshot]

"Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true." http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/
 
That's why we present supporting arguments and don't just say, "Believe me because I'm in a position to know."

 

[xnor]

Skeptic's corner or Sound Science, if you dismiss most or all claims listed in #68, which is anything but a complete list, for the reason that there is not enough evidence* then you should be so honest to yourself and consistent in rejecting audio-related claims as well.
 
Let's take Greenleaf7's thread about snake oil products. Snake oil in that context basically just means the product doesn't do anything (Greenleaf7 explained it quite clearly). That's the default position. The burden of proof is on those that claim such products do work, and with work I don't mean cause imagined differences. Why aren't those people posting something in defense of these products? If the differences are so obvious why is there no evidence? Placebo is one possible answer.
If you can show me evidence that something like "CD demagnetizers" work I will change my mind. And if the price was right I'd even buy one.
 
Then there's the smug request by the same people (which I repeat, usually do not even try to provide evidence) that skeptics have to come up with the evidence. Not only is this a shift of the burden of proof, but nearly as absurd as trying to commit suicide with homeopathy.
 
To everyone complaining there is not enough science in Sound Science: why don't YOU contribute something, especially if YOU "hear" differences.
 
 
*) excluding anecdotes, cause there are for example countless anecdotes about alien abductions. If you dismiss those anecdotes you, again be consistent, and dismiss all the others as well. (They can however be used to form hypothesis.)

 

[julian67]

@bigshot

The qualifer is the word "deductively".

You neglected to offer the full quotation. Here is the paragraph you preferred not to show:

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

There is plenty of inductive reasoning in audio science and discussion so it's not sensible to try to insist on definitions that are specific to deductive reasoning.

 

[bigshot]

I'll take your word for it!

 

[julian67]

I'll take your word for it!

It would be more interesting to examine the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning and see why and how both are present and necessary.