Is it the power of wishful thinking? Are people stupid? Gullible?
How can they think an "herbal supplement" who's claims have "not been evaluated by the FDA" will make them slimmer, stronger and/or naturally male enhanced?
The desire for something to be true doesn't make it true. People are wasting Billions every year on stupid stuff that doesn't work and might actually harm them.
When will people start looking at things with a critical eye?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously you haven't tried the vegetarian SUPER garlic. It's like regular garlic but super, not made out of meat, and has none of the health side effects of fresh garlic!
We all know that garlic is like wine, the longer it is aged the better it is.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You must have missed the thread on the study that found that expensive placebos worked better than cheap placebos.
Evidently, sometimes wishing does make it so.
As for GNC, not all of their products are scams. A lot of there products do have some proven efficacy for things like bulking up (protein powder) of stamina (some of their energy bars). They also cell a lot of standard vitamin and mineral supplements. Have you ever taken a multi-vitamin, a calcium supplement or an iron supplement.
And quite honestly, I don't think that large a percentage fall for any given scam but with the thousands of scams out there, sooner or later most people fall for one or the other.
You for example have fallen for the "global warming is a hoax" scam. I've been asking you for years to look at that with a more critical eye and I bet you still haven't read one single bonafide scientific report on the subject.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there you go. The supplement people think evidence-based medicine is a scam and vice-versa.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I just don't get it.
Is it the power of wishful thinking? Are people stupid? Gullible?
How can they think an "herbal supplement" who's claims have "not been evaluated by the FDA" will make them slimmer, stronger and/or naturally male enhanced?
I hardly think that one guy, sitting down 5 other guys in a room and doing a home test of monster v. coat hanger is proof that monster cables are junk. How do we even know that the guy didn't use the coat hanger or the monster cables both times and not actually switch? Maybe he has a junky home stereo system and it wouldn't matter what he used he would get a crummy sound?
I've never used a coat hanger, but I have used higher quality (read more expensive) cables v. the ones that come in the box in my own home, and I do hear a difference in sound quality. I also see a difference in picture quality. I don't actually use the cables that cost $100, but if a coat hanger is really as good as say, a basic monster cable, then what it really proves is that the stuff that comes in the box is truly junk.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be worth pointing out that Pixiest has presumably not spent any actual money on the warming-denial scam. Attention and time, perhaps, but no money. I don't think it unreasonable to expect people to be more sceptical about spending money on what purports to be a quid-pro-quo. Although televangelists do seem to shoot a hole in that theory, too.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:and I do hear a difference in sound quality. I also see a difference in picture quality.
Of course you do, having spent $some amount on it. That's not a proper test. The proper test would be for someone else to pick one of the two cables at random, without you being able to see, and for you to note down which cable you think is in use. If you can tell the right cable more than 50% of the time, there really is a difference.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the tests that have been done, people can never tell the difference between, for instance, Monster Cable and lamp cord if they aren't told which one they are using for speaker cables. Even if your in-the-box cables are total crap, there's no reason to buy even the "low end" $20-$30 Monster Cable rather than a $3 lamp cord.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:and I do hear a difference in sound quality. I also see a difference in picture quality.
Of course you do, having spent $some amount on it. That's not a proper test. The proper test would be for someone else to pick one of the two cables at random, without you being able to see, and for you to note down which cable you think is in use. If you can tell the right cable more than 50% of the time, there really is a difference.
While I was working for Radioshack, we actually did this a few times, both for ourselves and consumers. The employees (4-5 of us) correctly attributed higher quality signal transmission to Monster cabling almost every time; the consumers did so less frequently, but still the majority of the time. This was with 25 ft cables, in composite & s-video; I'm not sure the difference would be as pronounced with a 3 ft, and I'm positive the difference is non-existent with HDMI.
Radioshack "gold" cables vs brand x cables, on the other hand...if there was a difference, it wasn't consistently notable.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For RCA/S-Video cables, shielded vs not will make a difference over long distances, but decent shielded cables can be found for a fraction of the cost of Monster Cable or similar.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: For RCA/S-Video cables, shielded vs not will make a difference over long distances, but decent shielded cables can be found for a fraction of the cost of Monster Cable or similar.
Oh, absolutely. Monster makes a ton of money off being a brand name. I just wanted to input that the idea of higher quality cables providing greater analog signal fidelity does not appear to be a scam.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:and I do hear a difference in sound quality. I also see a difference in picture quality.
Of course you do, having spent $some amount on it. That's not a proper test. The proper test would be for someone else to pick one of the two cables at random, without you being able to see, and for you to note down which cable you think is in use. If you can tell the right cable more than 50% of the time, there really is a difference.
Karlheinz Stockhousen, the electronic/tape composer who passed away recently, could famously tell the difference between two apparently identical soundboards when they were in use. Although none of his coworkers or technicians knew how he was able to tell the difference between the sound qualities of individual pieces of equipment, even when they were identical models, he could usually do so, and his skill stood up against testing.
Although he was not ever shown to have more acute hearing than the average person, he, like many electronic composers, had an understanding of his perception of sound which allowed him to isolate different factors in a way most people never learn to do, part of the skill comes from having dealt with variations of different equipment, and spending many many hours of his life concerning himself with the noise produced by that equipment.
Some composers believe that we can become attuned, over time, to our perceptions of frequencies that are well beyond our range of audible hearing- my teacher calls this the "invisible knife in the forehead." Personally I have a hard time gaging sound quality, much less how to improve it.
Edit: I will add that, regarding Monster Cable, part of the supposed benefit is that the bandwidth of sound being delivered through the cable is diminished less through transmission than with other cables- I think if you did a spectrum analysis you would find that that, at least, is true, but that quality alone does not necessarily determine your listening experience.
Also, monster cables were introduced in the pre-digital era of recorded music. Tapes and phonographs have much higher bandwidths of frequency reproduction than does a CD, which can only reproduce a sound at 44.1 mhz. It seems possible to me that digital audio sources have eliminated a greater part of the need for high quality cables, because there is really less information moving through them in the digital age.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to use this thread as a shameless plug for Carl Sagan's [u]The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark[/u], as it pertains to the whole, don't believe everything you hear, theme of this thread. (sorry if someone else recommended it already, I didn't read all the posts in here)
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know.... This all calls to mind 'The Demon-Haunted World' by the great Carl Sagan.
I had the chance to hear Sagan speak at a university in Southern California some years ago, and what impressed me most was his don't-believe-everything-you-hear attitude and his absolute insistence on critical thinking.
If anyone else has already mentioned this, my apologies. I have not read the entire thread.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I was thinking about this and after reading the first post (but nothing else, because why waste my time reading what others have posted when I just want to offer my own opinion) I think I should recommend Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World" for everyone here.
If it's already been mentioned, I don't really care if I've repeated because after all, it's all about MY contribution to the thread and not me taking time to read other people's posts.
posted
Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Throatwarbler Mangrove Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Snugglebunnies Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Goat Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Everardus Bogardus Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan Carl Sagan!
I just feel compelled to mention him. I'm not sure why.
What was this thread about again?
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have used higher quality (read more expensive) cables v. the ones that come in the box in my own home, and I do hear a difference in sound quality.
If you can, then James Randi will give you $1,000,000.
Based on the thread topic, I figure this belongs here instead of the YouTube thread:
posted
The thread was about skepticism. The book I and TL(possibly facetiously) and Belle and Puffy (facetiously) have recommended is about skepticism and its place and value in society.
I thought my superfluous suggestion of the book (were it previously mentioned, which it was not, unless I'm blind...(maybe..)) could only possibly waste a few seconds of your time, but maybe the second suggestion could also affirm another suggestion that the book is pertinent, applicable to the subject at hand. I weighed the pros and cons and decided to post (I really did consider not doing it because someone may have previously, as I mentioned.)
I also offer my argument and indignation in TL's name, assuming it's wanted. Thanks for the unnecessary and snide comment, Belle.
I was in a hurry and wanted to get the recommendation out and didn't have time to read the posts.
Puffy Treat, what sort of comment is that? Carl Sagan is pertinent to the discussion/advocation of skepticism. sigh, it just annoyed me.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: The thread was about skepticism. The book I and TL(possibly facetiously) and Belle and Puffy (facetiously) have recommended is about skepticism and its place and value in society.
I thought my superfluous suggestion of the book (were it previously mentioned, which it was not, unless I'm blind...(maybe..)) could only possibly waste a few seconds of your time, but maybe the second suggestion could also affirm another suggestion that the book is pertinent, applicable to the subject at hand. I weighed the pros and cons and decided to post (I really did consider not doing it because someone may have previously, as I mentioned.)
I also offer my argument and indignation in TL's name, assuming it's wanted. Thanks for the unnecessary and snide comment, Belle.
I was in a hurry and wanted to get the recommendation out and didn't have time to read the posts.
Puffy Treat, what sort of comment is that? Carl Sagan is pertinent to the discussion/advocation of skepticism. sigh, it just annoyed me.
I don't know if this has been posted yet or not, because I really don't care what anybody else posts, it's all about me, baby, but:
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: Puffy Treat, what sort of comment is that? Carl Sagan is pertinent to the discussion/advocation of skepticism. sigh, it just annoyed me.
I was amused by the synchronism at work, two people in a row recommending the same book, apologizing if it was already mentioned, both stating they had not read the rest of the thread.
It struck me as being funny, and possibly intentionally so.
Sorry to have annoyed you.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It may be worth pointing out that Pixiest has presumably not spent any actual money on the warming-denial scam. Attention and time, perhaps, but no money. I don't think it unreasonable to expect people to be more sceptical about spending money on what purports to be a quid-pro-quo. Although televangelists do seem to shoot a hole in that theory, too.
An odd thing, that, given that one can spend time to obtain money, but not the opposite.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: An odd thing, that, given that one can spend time to obtain money, but not the opposite.
Not necessarily. If you pay someone else to do something you would otherwise have to do yourself, you're effectively spending money to get more free time.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, everyone buy Fastin. It couldn't be a scam. I just think it is becuase I'm paranoid, right?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gullability has been a problem in any age. Just as with many other things, the internet just seems to increase the spam.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The CWfA sends out these ridiculous letters that, unfortunately, people believe. As a Bible believing Christian, I think they can be way off base. Of course, extremists are nothing new, but they way they slant, misdirect, skew and downright lie about social issues is enough to make my blood boil.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. High five TL. Great minds think alike.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
