Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That's getting a little epistemological. The key thing there is understanding that observer biases exist, and working to safeguard against them. Typically by having multiple observations and preferably repeatable verifications.
Without that, people get fixated on what they think is right, and instead of working to falsify it (as any good scientist should), they instead only attempt to justify it. Which leads to follies like this:
Where the author expounds on for pages without realizing that that photo he is analyzing is a "texture mapped" 3d projection which has transformed mundane image artifacts into visually more interesting artifacts.
You also get rather weak appeals to authority like:
Argument from personal incredulity.For whatever it's worth, software algorithms are what I've been doing for a living since about 1972, including graphics applications and steganalysis which involves jpeg code. It is my professional opinion that no software application could produce an image like this one:
unless it was specifically programmed to do so. It is inconceivable to me that any application or algorithm could produce that image as an artifact of doing something else unrelated.
Yes . . . "The key thing there is understanding that observer biases exist, and working to safeguard against them. Typically by having multiple observations and preferably repeatable verifications. " But, the point is . . . what then do we do to explain multiple observers observing the same unexpected, novel, rare, non mundane event . . . ???? It having no known scientific explanation . . . ignore it . . . refuse to acknowledge it . . . call the observers wrong and ridicule their intelligence or intimidate them into keeping quiet and have them leave the arena of discussion to avoid criticism and professional suicide like my physician friend above . . .
Last edited by a moderator: