I disagree. Arguing over interpretations of religious texts or the consequences of political/social policies (with few studies) or the merits of personal adornments might be tribalism as you seem to be using it in the modern sense. Arguing about factual matters is quite different. It serves a very useful agenda: reducing the disinformation and mystery surrounding products and technologies as well as increasing general knowledge. Insofar as Amir focuses on the facts and the measurable outcomes I think it ultimately reduces tribalism by limiting the expansiveness of the belief framework that audiophiles use to justify their fringe pursuit.
Can one agree with both viewpoints at the same time ?
I mean... I totally agree with John, it would not have to be done... but... at the same time fighting 'misinformation' is a greater good and awareness is a good thing and is your point.
One has to keep in mind that Danny sells things and Amir does not so any objective review of 'snake-oil' and exposing it as such is possibly going to reduce Danny's income.
The only way to prevent that would be to discredit the review and/or author and is what Danny did. Fling mud.
This can be just viewed as flinging mud and ignored and am all for it... but... it is damaging Amir and for that reason should be 'countered'.
What I like is that it addresses the points Danny made but there are still hints of 'snears' in the rebuttal which could perhaps been left out.
I am curious to see Danny's response and the, subsequently needed, response back would be and how long this can continue.
And this is the sad part what John is referring to.
Let's just say that allowing misinformation (regardless if it is a belief or has a financial component) to rampage along isn't desirable from a science viewpoint.
