Discussion:
BaLooney Detection Kit MARLO?
(too old to reply)
Arthur Neuendorffer
2017-11-03 15:09:11 UTC
Permalink
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=25619&start=475#p276587
Arthur Neuendorffer
2017-11-03 18:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=25619&start=475#p276587
------------------------------------------------------------------
https://michaelshermer.com/2001/11/baloney-detection/

Michael Shermer: November 2001

To detect baloney — that is, to help discriminate between science and pseudoscience — I suggest 10 questions to ask when encountering any claim.

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

2. Does this source often make similar claims?

3. Have the claims been verified by another source?

4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?

5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought?

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?

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?
---------------------------------------------------
Arthur Neuendorffer
2017-11-03 22:02:37 UTC
Permalink
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

The Birthplace Trust is not at all reliable or unbiased.

2. Does this source often make similar claims?

The Birthplace Trust (like The Donald) demands unquestioning loyalty.

3. Have the claims been verified by another source?

The Birthplace Trust is backed up by so called "Shakespeare scholars."

4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?

An hick from hicksville with illiterate daughter:

1) writes the greatest & most sophisticated English literature
2) (full of aristocratic knowledge & views)
2) which ridicules the powerful Cecil family
3) while praising literate & sophisticated woman
4) and then retires early with a bunch of cash?

Give me a break!

5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim,
or has only supportive evidence been sought?

No one can publish or obtain a graduate degree if they question the Stratman.

6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant’s conclusion or to a different one?

The preponderance of circumstantial evidence points 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?

Denying circumstantial evidence can only lead to the desired conclusion.

8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?

The claimant provides no explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denies alternative solutions.

9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?

The claimant only accepts the traditional choice which is totally devoid of explanation.

10. Do the claimant’s personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?

The claimant’s considerable monetary gain drive the conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
2017-11-25 20:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
The Birthplace Trust is not at all reliable or unbiased.
Why on earth not, Art?! Your Petulant Paranoid persona has neVER answered that.

More to the point, the Birthplace Trust is *not* the source of the evidence upon which the attribution is based; documents, as unearthed by literary historians and other experts, are. Scholars reach their conclusions by immersing themselves in literary and social history, and by painstaking use of specialized skills like paleography (no, Art; paleography has nothing to do with drawing dinosaurs) and classical languages, not by consulting the Birthplace Trust, which only came into existence long after the literary attribution was conclusively established.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2. Does this source often make similar claims?
The Birthplace Trust (like The Donald) demands unquestioning loyalty.
The Birthplace Trust does not demand loyalty from anyone, Art. HoweVER, like (t)Rump, you are utterly impERVious to facts, so you just make things up instead.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
3. Have the claims been verified by another source?
The Birthplace Trust is backed up by so called "Shakespeare scholars."
Shakespeare scholars actually *know* something about Shakespeare and about literary attribution, Art -- unlike, for example, illiterate boobs who think (usual disclaimer) that Ann Hathaway was Shakespeare's mother, that тæрин is Russian for "youth", that Wordsworth's "The Idiot Boy" is by Coleridge, etc. Such Usenet Idiot Boys rush in where angels fear to tread.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
A moron who thinks (usual disclaimer) that a man traveling from New Haven to New York City would undertake such a trip by boarding a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles knows so little about how the world works that he is in absolutely no position to judge! This unfitness to judge is especially stark in the case of a moron who thinks (usual disclaimer) that Mellon Grant recipients are compelled to pick up their grant checks in person, and who is moreoVER unaware that there are Mellon Bank branches outside Manhattan, and that the U. S. Postal Service exists.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
An [sic] hick
Is English your native tongue, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
from hicksville
Warwickshire was not "hicksville", Art; get someone to read the first chapter of _Ungentle Shakespeare_ to you if you wish to gain some inkling of the cultural flowering in the midlands that took place just prior to Shakespeare.
Is English your native tongue, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
1) writes the greatest & most sophisticated English literature
That's a subjective judgment, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2) (full of aristocratic knowledge & views)
Rubbish! The Shakespeare canon is *not* "full of aristocratic knowledge & views", as you would know if you (a) could read, (b) had read the canon, and (c) knew anything about English social history. Before making idiotic claims like the above, you could at least have asked someone to read a little of the canon to you. Of course, the fact that it is written in English would be for you an insurmountable obstacle, but you could perhaps find someone with saintly patience to explain it to you in COBOL or in MAD, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
2) [sic]
The ordinal number following 2 it not 2, Art. Did they not teach you to count as high as two at George Mason Elementary? Or were you just a particularly inept student?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
which ridicules the powerful Cecil family
Most of the canon does not even mention anything or anyone even remotely connected with the Cecil family, Art, as you would know if you (a) could read English, and (b) had read the canon. Before making idiotic claims of that sort, you could at least have asked someone to read the canon to you.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
3) while praising literate & sophisticated woman [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
4) and then retires early with a bunch of cash?
Give me a break!
You need a break, Art! I've been urging you to take up a hobby.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim,
or has only supportive evidence been sought?
No one can publish or obtain a graduate degree if they [sic] question the
Stratman.
Is English your native tongue, Art?

That's a ridiculous claim, and it is demonstrably false, Art! *Lots* of people who have questioned the orthodOX attribution have earned graduate degrees, as the compilers of the "Declaration of Reasonable [sic] Doubt" neVER tire of pointing out. (Indeed, the Declaration is apparently willing to accept the academic _bone fides_ of the likes of Dr. Voluntad San Juan Sacudón de Lanza.)

More to the point, Dr. antiStratnutter obtained a Ph.D. *precisely* by challenging the orthodOX view.

As for publication, there are journals like _The Oxfordian_ that *welcome* manuscripts challenging the orthodOX attribution. I admit that the quality of the peer REView is risible and the content therein is often even more so, but they are publications nonetheless. MoreoVER, "Shakespeare and the voyagers revisited" by Kositsky and Stritmatter appears in _The Review of English Studies_, published by the venerable Oxford UniVERsity Press. True, that paper appears to have been demolished since then, but it was published nonetheless. Sabrina Feldman has published two books, to my knowledge, and may have others in the works. Even Mr. Streitz (of all people!) published a book challenging the conventional attribution.

Of all the complete crap that you have posted above, your claim that "No one can publish or obtain a graduate degree if they [sic] question the Stratman" is the most egregiously idiotic.

Is your mule-headed insistence that one cannot publish if one questions the orthodOX attribution the *real* reason that you have not yet written up and published your "discoVERies", Art? My offer to write a Preface for your book still stands! You should not let your illiteracy or your hemidemisemiglot status deter you, Art; Mr. Streitz was not deterred by such shortcomings, so why should you be?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant’s conclusion or
to a different one?
The preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to a different one?
Rubbish, Art! You don't even have any *circumstantial* evidence, let alone anything remotely resembling credible evidence.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
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?
Denying circumstantial evidence can only lead to the desired conclusion.
In other words, you and your coreligionists are *NOT* employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research. Gracefully conceded, Art!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or
merely denying the existing explanation?
The claimant provides no explanation for the observed phenomena or merely
denies alternative solutions.
That's because the alternative "solutions" are at best devoid of evidence and at worst completely insane, Art.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many
phenomena as the old explanation did?
The claimant only accepts the traditional choice
The traditional Axiom of Choice? What alternative axiom do you have in mind (such as it is), Art?
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
which is totally devoid of
explanation.
10. Do the claimant’s personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?
The claimant’s considerable monetary gain drive [sic] the conclusions.
Is English your native tongue, Art?

*What* "considerable monetary gain" do you have in mind (such as it is), Art? Most Shakespeare scholars are anything but wealthy, and some have lived in poVERty. Since you remain both completely ignorant of and utterly ineducable concerning the evidentiary basis of literary attributions, let me remind you again that the attribution to William Shakespeare of Stratford, the actor and shareholder in the company that performed Shakespeare's plays, of the literary output of the poet and playwright William Shakespeare is based upon documentary evidence and upon the painstaking research of many generations of erudite and gifted scholars, none of whom stood to reap any particular financial reward for such discoVERies, Art.

Indeed, the delusion that *anyone* is getting rich by means of Shakespeare scholarship is one of the most reliable diagnostic signs of paranoia!
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Loading...