Not remotely true on either count. There are a healthy number of businesses that thrive on selling snake oil. Always have been, always will be.
Common ground is nice to find. Scientists should provide us with empirical data, soldiers should keep bad guys from killing us. Both are important responsibilities. Just like I wouldn't trust a researcher to know how to clear a room, I wouldn't trust a soldier to understand how to implement the scientific method.
Sure, some things fall into the common sense category. I don't need a scientist to tell me people generally die when you shoot them in the head with a .44mag. This ain't that kinda scenario though.
You might not be able to, but there is a vast amount of credible research behind the theory of gravity, stretching back for hundreds if not thousands of years.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but there is zero cold, hard, empirical research indicating that a terrestrial herbivore possesses (or even would be advantaged to possess) any type of sensory organ capable of detecting the minuscule amount of energy we offput, especially at hunting distances.
"
Not remotely true on either count. There are a healthy number of businesses that thrive on selling snake oil. Always have been, always will be."
True. There are snake oil businesses. But a few things to consider:
1) There's also a lot of bad science in the midst of good science. You don't casually dismiss good science as bogus simply because bad science exists.
2) There are vastly more healthy, thriving businesses that aren't selling snake oil than those that are. So, statistically speaking, we shouldn't say that part of being a healthy, thriving business has nothing to do with selling good products.
3) How many snake oil companies are there that are selling "safety gear" to military personnel and have a good reputation? I bet that % is even lower (possibly non-existent statistically speaking). The HECS suit either works for the military, or it's completely bogus and does absolutely nothing. Should be pretty easy to determine if it doesn't work at all.
Also, I'm glad that AARDVARK is making money. Capitalism is one of the very reasons our country is thriving and leading in many areas worldwide. At the end of the day, how many life-saving drugs are there that are pulling in billions of $? Should we casually dismiss them because there are also some bad drugs out there making money? I don't think so. And I really do think it's quite a stretch for you to say that you don't trust any companies that speak about their products. That's quite extreme and rules out all, if not most, of businesses worldwide.
Lastly, even if AARDVARK's main motive is making money and not protecting law enforcement, etc., that doesn't prove anything. Having your primary motive be making money (and not safety) is not mutually exclusive to selling a quality product that works. So, the money motivation is irrelevant. All that matters is does the suit work or not. Motive (which is an ad hominem argument) doesn't effect the suit one way or the other.
"Common ground is nice to find. Scientists should provide us with empirical data, soldiers should keep bad guys from killing us. Both are important responsibilities. Just like I wouldn't trust a researcher to know how to clear a room, I wouldn't trust a soldier to understand how to implement the scientific method."
1) As I stated in another post correcting myself, there are military scientists.
2) I agree we have some common ground. “Soldiers should keep bad guys from killing us.” This involves letting the soldiers test new equipment in the field and determine what helps them do their job the best and trusting their judgment since they know best when it comes to being in the field. Soldiers don't have to know the scientific intricacies of how something works before they can figure out that it does work. Again, pragmatism rules the day. After all, there are a number of examples of how science has been wrong (sometimes for decades and centuries) and where regular folk (rightly) ignored their "scientific data" because it didn’t line up with their real life experiences.
"Sure, some things fall into the common sense category. I don't need a scientist to tell me people generally die when you shoot them in the head with a .44mag. This ain't that kinda scenario though."
And it doesn't have to be in that same gun-to-head scenario in order to fall into the common sense category.
"You might not be able to, but there is a vast amount of credible research behind the theory of gravity, stretching back for hundreds if not thousands of years."
You're missing my point. Even if there was no credible research behind the theory of gravity, it wouldn't matter for the average joe. We'd still know the reality of it due to its practical and real effects. You don't need science (in this instance) to know that gravity works. You only need it to know "how" it works.
"You can believe whatever you want to believe, but there is zero cold, hard, empirical research indicating that a terrestrial herbivore possesses (or even would be advantaged to possess) any type of sensory organ capable of detecting the minuscule amount of energy we offput, especially at hunting distances."
Is it true that there’s zero cold, hard, empirical research? Maybe. Should you emphatically and confidently make that claim without having combed through all of (or at least the majority of) the research they are presenting? Not if you want to be intellectually and scientifically honest.
So, to be clear, you’re emphatically and confidently saying the suit is a complete joke. I’m saying that knowing that it does what they claim (blocks your EMF), that it works in aquatics and with birds, and knowing that the military and law enforcement see it as advantageous, I’m open to the possibility that it may help with going undetected by other animals such as deer. For me, the jury is still out. Logically, I think my position is much more tenable and reasonable.
It seems to me to be very unproductive to, after admitting you have a bias, state that you are going to rely on your “assumption” that all of the research is flimsy simply because the grad's research paper didn't impress you. (After all, that's not a very scientific approach.) Could the grad have done a better job with his research method? Probably. Does that mean that all of his findings are bogus? Nope.
At the end of the day, I think it's important to remember something you said in one of your original posts. "Man is rational, but also rationalizing, and often sees deities in his toast. IE,
we see what we look for" Well, the opposite is true as well. Through our rationalizing, we can also "not see" what is actually there if we so choose.
I've appreciated the interaction man! Time for me to move on
