Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

If you are using a Hotmail or Outlook email address, please change it now, as Microsoft is rejecting all email from our service outright.
Topic: [TOS #2/5] Re: more 192kHz nonsense? (Read 4395 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from more 192kHz nonsense?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #2/5] Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Quote from: pelmazo on
This is a very tendentious uttering that reminds me of creationists when they speak about evolution. Or short: It's bullshit.

It seems you haven't noticed that the topic of this thread and the forum it is hosted in is NOT the origins of the universe and life, but just AUDIO.
There's plenty of places on the Internet where your bigoted opinions on how "creationism", as you call it, is, by your TENDENTIOUS comparison, "bullshit", will be on-topic, but I'm quite sure that this is not one of them, so you keep that line of commentary out of here.
Maybe the "Off-Topic" section of this community will happily receive whatever debates or flamewars you may desire to start on that particular topic. Although, I've never been there and don't know what rules apply. I suggest you check them.

That'll be all.

Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Creationism, being pseudoscience that lately dresses itsefl up in the technical jargon of science [...]

You know full well that this isn't and shouldn't be the place to discuss that subject. Are you trying to bait me?
If I replied to your claim it would derail the thread, it would be absolutely off-topic in this forum and administrative action would probably ensue.
It doesn't matter what you or a billion like you believe on this subject. Saying that "Creationism is pseudoscience" is a claim, and, as such, it can be debated. But such a debate is out of place here, and rightfuly so. I'm not even asking for permission to discuss origins here. I come here for AUDIO, and I don't think opening that door here would be beneficial. If I want to debate origins, I go where that issue is ON-TOPIC.

I feel tempted to reply to your claims, but then I would be doing the exact same thing I'm criticizing you for.
Is it really so unreasonable to ask that a forum about audio stays on it's topic?
Your stance about this being "a board that favors science" is pointless and irrelevant because the discussion about origins does not affect in the slightest the discussion about audio, so why don't you keep your opinions on the matter to yourself?
This has nothing to do with catering to "my 'opinions'" (as you contemptuously put it), but with intellectual honesty.

Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: radorn on
Quote from: krabapple on
Creationism, being pseudoscience that lately dresses itsefl up in the technical jargon of science [...]

You know full well that this isn't and shouldn't be the place to discuss that subject. Are you trying to bait me?


I'm one of those horrible born-again Christians, but even for me, creationism is just plain intellectually a poster child for pseudoscience. I favor working fights that are just and should be won. IMO this isn't. PS I am also anti-Trump. :-)

Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #3 –
Where the fuck is this thread going?

Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm one of those horrible born-again Christians, but even for me, creationism is just plain intellectually a poster child for pseudoscience. I favor working fights that are just and should be won. IMO this isn't. PS I am also anti-Trump. :-)
Again, why even say that? I'm trying to stay away from discussing that here.
Either we discuss origins or we don't, and I don't think we should do that here. Agreed?
To keep asserting points of view in a topic that doesn't pertain here, especially when these points of view are expressed as simple disparaging of the opposing view, is baiting, even if unintentional, in which case I suggest one should get the reins of his own will and INTENTIONALLY avoid it.
TOS #2 ??
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on
Where the fuck is this thread going?
Back to audio, I hope.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on
Where the fuck is this thread going?

Into a subthread on what and which analogies, comparisons, or even metaphors, can and can't be used. They are all tools of language and discussion. If an analogy is a bad analogy it can be demonstrated to be so, Bad analogies and inappropriate examples are pften used to support week arguments. They can be attacked. Say, "You can't say that because it isn't true, or doesn't work that way," Not "You can't say that because, erm..."
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
Into a subthread on what and which analogies, comparisons, or even metaphors, can and can't be used. They are all tools of language and discussion. If an analogy is a bad analogy it can be demonstrated to be so, Bad analogies and inappropriate examples are pften used to support week arguments. They can be attacked. Say, "You can't say that because it isn't true, or doesn't work that way," Not "You can't say that because, erm..."

I find "erm..." to be a gross misrepresentation of my arguments.
Following your advice in this particular case would necesarily result in opening an actual debate on origins in an audio forum, in a thread about supersonic sampling rates. Is that what you suggest? Because I think that's a really bad idea.

I think my point could be resumed as "don't bait debates you don't want to have or that would be out of place".
I think that would fall into the scope of TOS #2.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: radorn on
This discussion is about audio, so keep your opinions about the origins of the universe and life to yourself, as I do with mine, and don't shoehorn them into this thread.
If your concern is that the thread may turn away from audio, and discuss unrelated topics instead, then I'm with you.

But that's not what I wanted, and I doubt it is what will happen. The analogy between audiophilism and creationism is not quite as far fetched as you might want to believe. I don't see why it should be off topic here to draw fitting and potentially illuminating analogies.

Quote from: krabapple on
Creationism, being pseudoscience that lately dresses itself up in the technical jargon of science, is an entirely appropriate analogy for Hans's brand of audiophilia.
Indeed, and this is quite evident from the style of argumentation, and their conduct in a debate.

I believe it is a general challenge of our current societal situation, to separate the truth from the bullshit (which seems to get poured on us from ever larger buckets), and part of this is to learn spotting dubious patterns of argumentation.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
The analogy between audiophilism and creationism is not quite as far fetched as you might want to believe.
It's spot on. Using it as an analogy (as you did) is not the same as delving into debating it's merits. That's a way to red herring the actual argument that audiophoolery is analogous to belief, like creationism.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #9 –
@pelmazo
And there you go again, baiting debates that do not have a place in here.
If I were to casually throw arround that evolution is, or equate it with, "bullshit" as you do with creation, a bunch of people would gang up on me, and administrative action would more than surely ensue, and even more surely if I were to start an actual debate on the subject. They would be right to do that, and so would they if they applied the same treatment to comments like yours.
I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think. But, as I said, that has no place here. Last time I checked, this place was meant to discuss AUDIO.
The debate on origins has no bearing on any audio subjects, so why do you feel the need to "stick it to those dumb creationists"? Save that for when you attend one of those atheist rallies with Dawkins & friends, will you?

Quote from: radorn on
I think my point could be resumed as "don't bait debates you don't want to have or that would be out of place".
I think that would fall into the scope of TOS #2.

@ajinfla
I say the same to you. If you don't want to debate it, and you shouldn't as this is a forum about audio (I'm getting tired of repeating this OBVIOUS fact), don't bait it. Whether you are right or not has no bearing on this. You are just CLAIMING something, regarldless of how self-evident you deem it to be. As a claim it is, I have counter claims for it, but, once more, they have no place in a forum about audio, NOR DO YOURS.

Is this so hard for you to see? Being right in that issue that is irrelevant for this forum is so important to you that you have to be such zealots about it?

If you pay attention, all I'm saying is that you keep the discussion to audio and resist the temptation of slipping your politics and BELIEFS in.
But it seems you guys just can't control yourselves...

Quote from: radorn on
Either we discuss origins or we don't, and I don't think we should do that here. Agreed?

Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #10 –
Ok, so you're a butthurt creationist. Move on
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #11 –
Comparisons to creationism are perfectly acceptable.

Pretending you're a moderator by saying what is allowed is not perfectly acceptable.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: radorn on
I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think.
That's another analogy between audiophiles and creationists. Audiophiles would also claim to have "better arguments". If you want to know which ones, they invariably mention their ears. For them, that argument beats anything that could possibly be offered by the "scientific camp".

If you understand why "their ears" isn't a good argument at all, you have a better chance understanding which arguments in the creationism-evolution debate are good, too.

Quote
...so why do you feel the need to "stick it to those dumb creationists"? Save that for when you attend one of those atheist rallies with Dawkins & friends, will you?
That's not what I wanted. I thought I had a good analogy, that's all. That it prompts you to blow off that much steam was unexpected to me, but I don't think that's my fault. If you are scientifically-minded, you should be able to understand why creationism is so unpopular amongst scientists.

I haven't attended any atheist rally so far, btw. I just find it irritating that atheism isn't the default, and that it has such an embattled status that people feel that rallies are needed. But it shares that with other stances that should be default, like gender and race equality, or universal healthcare.

There you go, more political beliefs slipped in. :-)

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: greynol on
Comparisons to creationism are perfectly acceptable.

Especially if you call yourself "Audio Evangelist" as Hans does.
The only thing that bothers me, you don't get a chance discussing his view on audio on his channel.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: greynol on
Comparisons to creationism are perfectly acceptable.

Pretending you're a moderator by saying what is allowed is not perfectly acceptable.

I see. Please, settle these, then:
1: When someone makes that kind of comparison, what kind of response is acceptable to show my disagreement?
2: Is it acceptable to present the case that evolutionism is pseudocience in response to the same accusation expressed towards creation?
3: Is it also allowed to say that evolution is, and evolutionists say "bullshit", as others have said of creation?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #15 –
@pelmazo
I have made plenty clear why I have refrained from presenting any arguments in the origins debate so far. Since I don't think it belongs here, it would be hypocritical of me to be the one starting it. Also I don't expect such debate to be well received by the administrators, as it sounds like something that would violate TOS #5. But I guess we'll have official word on that soon?
So you know, I do plenty of origins debate... elsewhere.
At this point, you have no basis whatsoever to advance that my arguments would be comparable to appealing one's own ears in an audio debate. At this point, your accusation is a baseless, cheap, and opportunistic display of prejudice.
Also, I should point out that you haven't presented any arguments for evolution either. So far you've just rested on it's wide acceptance, which says nothing whatsoever about it's merits. Your argument about the rejection of creation among (many, not all) scientists, is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #16 –
Nice job of diverting the argument from Youtube audiofoolery to creationism there Hans
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: radorn on
At this point, you have no basis whatsoever to advance that my arguments would be comparable to appealing one's own ears in an audio debate. At this point, your accusation is a baseless, cheap, and opportunistic display of prejudice.
Hold your horses, please.

The case that led me to my analogy wasn't you, it was Hans Beekhuyzen's video, to which you linked in the opening post here in the thread. Perhaps you are Hans, but I couldn't possibly have known, nor have I suspected it. Please read again my post #16, and you may recognise that my analogy was specifically prompted by Hans' calling the Nyquist Theorem "just a theory". It is this way of suggesting that it doesn't have the character of a "truth", being just one of potentially many theories, that reminded me of the creationists, which give the same treatment to evolution.

So, again, it is not the content that I wanted to emphasize here, it was the type of argument.

Quote
Also, I should point out that you haven't presented any arguments for evolution either. So far you've just rested on it's wide acceptance, which says nothing whatsoever about it's merits.
I don't need to present any such argument if my aim is to point out the analogy in argumentation style, wouldn't you agree?

I am not a biologist, hence you probably wouldn't take a substantial pro evolution argument from me anyway. Not being a specialist, my own opinion in this matter doesn't rest so much on the scientific detail, but on the more fundamental realisation, that postulating a creator doesn't actually explain anything. From a scientific viewpoint, a creator is a useless explanation, because you can explain everything and its opposite with it. It doesn't give you any help in distinguishing wrong from right explanations, nor does it allow any insight into how, when, why, with which tools, and with whose help the creation happened. If the universe around us was the work of a creator, I sure would want to have a look into his workshop, but you know as well as I know, that this is not going to happen. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, the creationist argument is "not even wrong". It is useless, just as reference to one's ears is useless as evidence in audio science.

Consequently, creationists, just as audiophiles, typically spend their time trying to shoot holes into the established scientific viewpoint, apparently believing that this makes their opinion look better in comparison. But any science is full of holes anyway, otherwise we would be done. There are always cases where a good explanation is still missing, so further work is needed. There's no need for a reminder from the creationist side, or the audiophile side. They should instead focus on demonstrating that their favorite explanation actually holds water, has explanatory power, leads the way to experimental clarification, and hence amounts to useful science.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #19 –
How can you say now that this is not directed at me?
Quote from: pelmazo on
Quote from: radorn on
I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think.
That's another analogy between audiophiles and creationists. Audiophiles would also claim to have "better arguments". If you want to know which ones, they invariably mention their ears. For them, that argument beats anything that could possibly be offered by the "scientific camp".
If I say that I think I have better arguments and you say that what I'm doing is comparable to arguing about one's ears, how is that not about me? You are advancing what my arguments are and their validity even before I even present them. And I said many times why I don't present them.... which brings me to:
Quote from: greynol on
Well said, pelmazo.  It should be a satisfactory answer to radorn's questions.
If you are refering to the questions I specifically directed at you... then no, not satisfactory all. Not even related.

The only thing that is implicitly answered by your actions, is that it seems OK to actually debate origins here, since pelmazo is doing it and you praise his intervention. Tell me IF and HOW I am misinterpreting that.

It seems reasonable to me to have your explicit confirmation, so, please, answer my questions as I previously stated them:

1: When someone makes that kind of comparison, what kind of response is acceptable to show my disagreement?
2: Is it acceptable to present the case that evolutionism is pseudocience in response to the same accusation expressed towards creation?
3: Is it also allowed to say that evolution is, and evolutionists say "bullshit", as others have said (repeatedly) about creation?

Finally:
Quote from: pelmazo on
They should instead focus on demonstrating that their favorite explanation actually holds water, has explanatory power, leads the way to experimental clarification, and hence amounts to useful science.
I can't possibly know what lines of argumentation you have seen or from which proponents; which you have ignored, or how fairly you are representing them when you bring them up. I can't vow for any of that. What I do know is what I have seen myself from both the naturalist model and the creation model and how valid or invalid I consider their thinking and argumentation and how much I agree or disagree with their conclusions.
I will provide you with some links via private message, and if greynol thinks I should, I'll also post them here, along with a brief statement on how I see this whole issue in a similar vein to pelmazo's intervention.
I still believe this whole thing was unnecesary and could have been avoided if you and others just refrained from baiting the debate. And, yes, I insist that calling creation pseudocience and bullshit is baiting, because affirming any of that calls for a debate, and it's dishonest if that debate can't be had; which is also a particular debate that I don't think should be had here...
...and, greynol, I don't pretend to supplant moderator powers, but wouldn't that violate TOS #5? If it indeed does violate TOS #5, as I believe, do I also get a pass if I do it, as pelmazo seems to get a pass? Does it sound fair to you to say that "either we all do it or nobody does"?
I really, really don't want to debate origins here, as I repeatedly said. I do plenty of that elsewhere. But it's your call now.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #20 –
If you want to discuss why creationism is not faith-based pseudoscience you're welcome to do that in the off-topic forum.  The world has been waiting for a scientific explanation for a very long time now.

Your combative tone will end now.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #21 –
@greynol
I may eventually accept your invitation, thank you, but I'm afraid my questions still remain unanswered. Should I assume that there won't be an answer?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #22 –
I would suggest that analogies that invite controversy - whether merited or not - are not effective analogies.

One of my personal rules of forum behavior is "never argue the analogy - it only takes things off-topic".

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #23 –
Someone will always get pissed off no matter what you do.

It's clear to me that no one is attempting to argue the merits of creationism vs non-creationism.  However radon has made it clear that he's is ready and willing and has gone so far as to claim he will be victorious (talk about troll baiting!).

As I already said, radorn is welcome to argue how creationism isn't faith-based pseudoscience like placebophilia is in another discussion in the off-topic forum.  If he feels people are being unfair in the comparison he can then point them to the other topic to have that discussion there.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: greynol on
It's clear to me that no one is attempting to argue the merits of creationism vs non-creationism.
pelmazo just did that in a two paragraph exposition, and others have done so with one-liners.

Quote from: greynol on
However radon has made it clear that he's is ready and willing
Not true. I've been saying all the time that I don't want to, and it's only because you keep pushing it that I reluctantly would do it.

Quote from: greynol on
and has gone so far as to claim he will be victorious (talk about troll baiting!).
Huh? You'll have to point me to that, because I do not remember having said any such thing.

Quote from: greynol on
As I already said, radorn is welcome to argue how creationism isn't faith-based pseudoscience like placebophilia is in another discussion in the off-topic forum.  If he feels people are being unfair in the comparison he can then point them to the other topic to have that discussion there.

That sort of answers one of my question #1 [When someone makes that kind of comparison, what kind of response is acceptable to show my disagreement?]
So, If I understand it correctly, if someone goes on to claim or imply that creation is a pseudoscientifical bullshit in any thread on the forum, interested users (like me) can't answer that in the same thread, but, instead what they should do is open an Off-Topic thread and link that into the original thread?

This begs question #3 again [Is it also allowed to say that evolution is, and evolutionists say "bullshit", as others have said (repeatedly) about creation?]
So, is it allowed to say in any thread in the forum that evolution is a bullshit pseudocience and their proponents say bullshit? and if one does that, should others also open Off-Topic threads as an answer instead of replying in the same thread?

This leaves question #2 [Is it acceptable to present the case that evolutionism is pseudocience in response to the same accusation expressed towards creation?]
pelmazo did just that minutes ago in this very thread. He didn't have to move it to Off-Topic, and he even received praise from moderation. Is that official policy that applies to all users and all opinions on that issue?
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021