EH Antennas and Baloney Detection RE: Scientific American
Richard Clark
http://130.94.24.217/2001/1101issue/1101skeptic.html
http://130.94.24.217/2001/1201issue/1201skeptic.html
For the rest of you,
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:46:47 GMT, in rec.radio.amateur.antenna stefano
wrote:
>
>
>Hi Richard,
>thanks so much for this long and accurate analysis of my previous email.
>Interesting....:-))
>I thought to be on a technical newgroup , and not on a english class....
Now to remove the gloves....
BEGIN QUOTE FROM SOURCES ABOVE
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
Pseudoscientists often appear quite reliable, but when examined
closely, the facts and figures they cite are distorted, taken out of
context or occasionally even fabricated.
2. Does this source often make similar claims?
Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts. Watch
out for a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently ignores or
distorts data.
3. Have the claims been verified by another source?
Typically pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified or
verified only by a source within their own belief circle.
4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
An extraordinary claim must be placed into a larger context to see how
it fits.
5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only
supportive evidence been sought?
This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory
evidence and to reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence.
6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant's
conclusion or to a different one?
7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of
research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to
the desired conclusion?
8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena
or merely denying the existing explanation?
This is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never
affirm what you believe to avoid criticism. This stratagem is
unacceptable in science.
9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as
many phenomena as the old explanation did?
10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the
conclusions, or vice versa?
END QUOTE
Please note that this is not multiple choice, nor is it best 7 of 10
for a minimal passing score. Any hit invalidates your premise.
Let's score EH to stefano's posted data and references:
1. - HIT, reliability 0;
2. - HIT, calling their design fringe is being hospitable;
3. - HIT, no outside reliable sources have confirmed their claims;
4. - HIT, their design announces to the world how it does not fit;
5. - HIT, they carefully avoid negative data;
6. - HIT, the preponderance of data negates their claims;
7. - HIT, they carefully avoid negative tests;
8. - PASS, only fraudtenna has this arrogance;
9. - PASS, only fraudtenna has this arrogance;
10. - PASS, only fraudtenna has this arrogance.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
dan
wrote:
>For those who wish to skip my cut and paste:
>http://130.94.24.217/2001/1101issue/1101skeptic.html
>http://130.94.24.217/2001/1201issue/1201skeptic.html
>
>For the rest of you,
>
>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:46:47 GMT, in rec.radio.amateur.antenna stefano
>wrote:
Massive snip
Well said Sir!
Dan
I've rambled enough, back to the rocking chair. ZZZZZZZZZ
Remove left x for a direct reply.
David Robbins
on here that deal with 'scientific' subjects.
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:g10f2u490tana7ff1...@4ax.com...
Rick Littlefield
on here that deal with 'scientific' subjects.<
Hi Dave:
In case you weren't following, many here were discredited, threatened with
civil action, and shamelessly libeled as a consequence of posing such honest
challenges. Come to think of it, Scientific American recognized the very person
who initiated most of it on here! Perhaps Scientific American's editors ought
to pay a little more attention.
Rick K!BQT
'Doc
I would think it depended on the purpose of the article
they published, or why 'he' was recognized. I would think
that the editors would have a bit more sense(?) than to jump
on ~that~ bandwagon... hopefully. If not, lets sue them!
'Doc