Re: Vuescan - new features

On 9 Dec 2005 13:26:56 -0800, "Roger S." <rsmith02@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Don, as a good scientist, I'm sure you realize that the quality of the
>evidence is paramount. Not only do you have to identify good evidence
>upon which to base your assertions, but you have to also examine the
>quality of the evidence and defend it from question.

Or, as the case may require, you identify the source and clearly
indicate the context. After that it's up to the reader to accept or
reject any conclusions based on that source and context. They do that,
for example, by challenging either the source or the context, or both.

Notably (!), *nobody* has done any of that here (i.e. questioned
Bart's original statement).

Therefore, it follows, that both the original statement and context
have been accepted implicitly. And if they have done that, they can't
deny any logical conclusions which follow from that statement and
context, nor can they (as you now try) reject it all after the fact!

!=> Finally (and sadly!) the discussion wasn't even about any of that
(i.e. the substance). We couldn't get *up* to that point because the
"fans" couldn't even grasp the concept why measuring gamma 2.2 image
and applying the results to a gamma 1.0 image doesn't make any sense.

After I explained it with an example, their eyes glazed over and they
suddenly went quiet, except for one notable exception trying to change
the subject and ending up - as expected - by throwing insults after
they painted themselves in a corner.

>If your evidence
>fails to stand up to scrutiny you have to find other evidence or
>abandon your argument. Simply citing "facts," particularly reports of
>widely varying quality from users of various levels of knowledge, is
>neither scientific nor objective, and it is quite irrational to then
>claim that this is in any way scientific.

Again: Context! Best explained with an example. If the premise is:

Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable

posting a long (and yet only partial!) Vuescan bug list from a
*variety* of sources (often with *multiple* confirmations!) is clear
evidence that the premise is not only true but justified.

The trouble is, in most cases, we are not dealing with logical
scientists here. Instead, such a *neutral* statement following from
evidence unleashes a torrent of "feelings". This is caused by some
Vuescan "fans" *misinterpreting* such an objective statement in a
number of different ways (e.g. as a subjective qualitative judgment).
Then based on that emotional overreaction they erupt with insults.

>The tests I believe Bart have done of the 5400 comparing Minolta and
>Vuescan software with different options enabled rise to the level of
>credibility. You have yet to produce anything comparable to support
>your assertions. I look forward to more tests about these new features
>from people who use this software, rather from those who simply sprew
>vitriol about it and resort to generalities and second-hand reports
>when challenged.

As already indicated on several occasions that's a straw man for a
number of reasons. Here's two:

1. There is a vast amount of data out there already.
2. Anybody who disagrees with any of that data can do their own tests.

Why not tackle all of that first before asking for more from the one
source they do not even accept a priori!?

Therefore, any calls for "more tests" is merely grandstanding and
diversionary tactics, somewhat reminiscent of Bush vs climate! ;o)

!=> You will also note that when I did the tests I even went through
the trouble of posting an example where Vuescan did work (!!!) to show
both my impartiality and objectivity! It didn't (and doesn't) make any
difference! Some Vuescan "fans" just lash out anyway.

Not to mention that when I do post specifics some Vuescan "fans" -
instead of addressing the facts in those specifics - immediately
become abusive even though they themselves asked for it.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't...

Don.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... that pretty much depends on the context. ... no wonder you cant understand why science and religion ... that is not why scientists follow the rules of science. ... so we go by the evidence and educated guesses e ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... If the context is one of scientific, ... no wonder you cant understand why science and religion ... so we go by the evidence and educated guesses e ... Good for what in a scientists? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... > There are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you. ... Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, ... > for photons of different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Stop It!!
    ... scientists and other humans are too selfish to exclude themselves from anywhere. ... Where does this evidence come from if the hypothesis hasn't been ... That, in the absence of humans, wildlife would ... ... > .differing levels of disturbance with equivalent natural habitats to ...
    (sci.bio.ecology)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... "spark of life" which separates living from non-living things. ... It's only a blurred line to scientists who keep changing the ... alone supported your calculations in any way with evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)