Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,674
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

xpatUSA wrote:

I'll re-do the pixel-peeping assessment of the truck image, using [part of the truck instead of the rock].

I did that. The result was as expected.

Ignoring blown-out background highlights, the truck looked reasonable at 100% on my monitor. Even more reasonable when re-sized by the Viewer to fit a window.

At 400% it was obvious that focal plane was at the rear of the truck bed and that the bed lamp and spare tire were out of focus. Why they were OOF, albeit obviously the use of f/4, is irrelevant to this thread.

Had I not looked at 400%, the incorrect focal plane would have been moot. Which means that pixel-peeping remains useful when assessing image quality, nay-sayers notwithstanding.

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
BenThomas1 New Member • Posts: 11
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...
1

The build quality, general design and “feel” of the DP2M is excellent. It’s a brick of a camera; hefty, though not too heavy. There’s little by way of ergonomic concessions (grips and such), but it still falls to hand nicely. It’s hard to describe, but there’s a tactile “rightness” to the DP2M that eludes many other cameras, and its clean appearance says that this is a camera with a purpose, not a generalized tool. Nevertheless, a third-party finger grip would be welcome, and I know that there is at least one on the way. It will be reported on here when I get an opportunity to try it.

MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: I recant
2

Definition: Bias -"prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

My experience in commuting with people on this forum about Foveon sensors and prints leads me to conclude that they are not susceptible to logic.  They give me subjective opinions about how great the results of Foveon sensors are, but when I suggest an objective test to determine the validity of their opinion some of them became upset.  In other words. how can what they say be wrong, it is their opinion?

I am not making a positive or negative statement about Foveon sensor output.  Does the output make a practical difference in the real world that would be noticeable?

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
docmaas
docmaas Veteran Member • Posts: 6,523
Re: I recant
1

MyReality wrote:

Definition: Bias -"prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

My experience in commuting with people on this forum about Foveon sensors and prints leads me to conclude that they are not susceptible to logic. They give me subjective opinions about how great the results of Foveon sensors are, but when I suggest an objective test to determine the validity of their opinion some of them became upset. In other words. how can what they say be wrong, it is their opinion?

I am not making a positive or negative statement about Foveon sensor output. Does the output make a practical difference in the real world that would be noticeable?

Please don't mistake the cloud of confirmation bias that you have exhibited in this response for any kind of objective assessment. You're no different than the rest of us... completely incapable, that is, of seeing the truth without extensive empirical investigation which a few conversations on this forum does not so constitute.

That aside are you a native speaker of English?

-- hide signature --

"Dao ke dao, fei chang dao. Ming ke ming, fei chang ming" Laozi
"At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past."
Maurice Maeterlinck

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 21,273
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

D Cox wrote:

PrebenR wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

I must have failed to make it clear that I use pixel-peeping only for the checking of image quality, NOT as a means to "take pictures of details".

Pixel-peeping does not show the image quality, at all. It shows sensor/lens capabilities, accuracy of the photograph (in focus). All those aspects can be perfect, and the image is still crap.

We are talking about technical image quality, not aesthetic quality. Resolution, noise and focus are all components of technical image quality.

Image quality doesn't come from perfect details alone.

Nobody said it did.

But what would have been a good picture artistically can be spoiled by a technical defect such as wrong focus or camera shake. I have a great many examples in my archives.

It depends on the subject. Technically, Robert Capa's D-day landing shots are a bit underwhelming by the standards usually espoused here, but that is missing the point. Some pictures (say, a product shot) will be ruined by the smallest technical flaw. Many other subjects will be in between.

As someone whose goal is to produce some form of hard copy output rather than screen output, many flaws can be hidden by appropriate choice of print size. It's really people who are striving for high quality very large prints who should be most concerned with high technical quality.

When viewing on screen, if my images don't stand up to pixel peeping, I would say "don't pixel peep"

One thing I noticed by my old and now malfunctioning Kodak 14n, was that it is a terrible camera for pixel peeping. There are a lot of very obvious pixel level defects that look quite horrible. But a 19" wide print from a good file can look lovely.

Clearly, what is appropriate technical image quality for an image is dependent on the application you have in mind for it. Perhaps we should be more forgiving of what we see as technical flaws in certain products because much of the time they don't matter in practice (and sometimes they will, equally).

-- hide signature --
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 24,241
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

DMillier wrote:

D Cox wrote:

PrebenR wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

I must have failed to make it clear that I use pixel-peeping only for the checking of image quality, NOT as a means to "take pictures of details".

Pixel-peeping does not show the image quality, at all. It shows sensor/lens capabilities, accuracy of the photograph (in focus). All those aspects can be perfect, and the image is still crap.

We are talking about technical image quality, not aesthetic quality. Resolution, noise and focus are all components of technical image quality.

Image quality doesn't come from perfect details alone.

Nobody said it did.

But what would have been a good picture artistically can be spoiled by a technical defect such as wrong focus or camera shake. I have a great many examples in my archives.

It depends on the subject. Technically, Robert Capa's D-day landing shots are a bit underwhelming by the standards usually espoused here, but that is missing the point. Some pictures (say, a product shot) will be ruined by the smallest technical flaw. Many other subjects will be in between.

As someone whose goal is to produce some form of hard copy output rather than screen output, many flaws can be hidden by appropriate choice of print size. It's really people who are striving for high quality very large prints who should be most concerned with high technical quality.

When viewing on screen, if my images don't stand up to pixel peeping, I would say "don't pixel peep"

One thing I noticed by my old and now malfunctioning Kodak 14n, was that it is a terrible camera for pixel peeping. There are a lot of very obvious pixel level defects that look quite horrible. But a 19" wide print from a good file can look lovely.

Clearly, what is appropriate technical image quality for an image is dependent on the application you have in mind for it. Perhaps we should be more forgiving of what we see as technical flaws in certain products because much of the time they don't matter in practice (and sometimes they will, equally).

All true.

FDecker Senior Member • Posts: 1,857
Re: I recant
2

MyReality wrote:

Definition: Bias -"prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

My experience in commuting with people on this forum about Foveon sensors and prints leads me to conclude that they are not susceptible to logic. They give me subjective opinions about how great the results of Foveon sensors are, but when I suggest an objective test to determine the validity of their opinion some of them became upset. In other words. how can what they say be wrong, it is their opinion?

I am not making a positive or negative statement about Foveon sensor output. Does the output make a practical difference in the real world that would be noticeable?

Talking about prejudice.... There are no "Foveon sensor users" as a uniform group. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many discussions over and over again. Also between "these people". To pigeonhole the Foveon Forum users is, guess what, prejudice.

Talking about bias (not in the negative unfair sense), you have you own bias as well. Your claim is that if a sensor doesn't show an advantage in a print, it has no advantage. Doesn't that mean that you declare to everyone that a print is the one and anly relevant output medium for a picture? But this is your personal point of view. With digital photography, there are other options which may appeal to other persons in a different way.

I understand your point of view and it is a valid point if someone decides that a print is key. But why not accept other opinions without belittement?

Maybe your alias is a hint....

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 21,273
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

BenThomas1 wrote:

The build quality, general design and “feel” of the DP2M is excellent. It’s a brick of a camera; hefty, though not too heavy. There’s little by way of ergonomic concessions (grips and such), but it still falls to hand nicely. It’s hard to describe, but there’s a tactile “rightness” to the DP2M that eludes many other cameras, and its clean appearance says that this is a camera with a purpose, not a generalized tool. Nevertheless, a third-party finger grip would be welcome, and I know that there is at least one on the way. It will be reported on here when I get an opportunity to try it.

It is very subjective.  I can think of a whole load of design things about the DP2M that would make me more inclined to use mine - and that's despite the obvious attempt to keep things simple.

I suppose the most obvious blunder is the tiny battery. A 21st century camera should really be able to do rather better than one roll of film's worth of shots per charge.

With a fixed focal length, there should have been a built in optical viewfinder with exposure information. For anyone who is old school and still needs an eye-level finder, a hot shoe carbuncle is a poor substitute

It really needs a hand grip and a rear thumb grip, it's a bar of soap. I made mine better handling by buying a half case but somewhere I lost it and they don't seem to be available any more.

The command wheel is nice but it could do with a second one - the buttons on the back are an adequate substitute but not ideal. An aperture ring might have been a good option or even just making the manual focus ring customisable.

A proper on/off switch would have been nice. The membrane button thing is ok at best.

The real killer, though, is its slow write speeds.  I struggle with any camera that can't display a post capture histogram with 1 second of the pressing the shutter because my working method depends on rapidly checking the exposure.  7-10 secs is torture.

There is still lots to like about the build and simplicity but it could have been so much better with some relatively minor tweaks. My order of priority would be:

- hand grip allowing a bigger battery

- proper viewfinder

- second command wheel (or customise the MF ring)

I think those things would have transformed the handling.

And of course one can always dream of a Sigma that had 10x faster write speeds and whose files could be processed in other raw converters.

-- hide signature --
PrebenR Veteran Member • Posts: 4,146
Re: I recant
1

xpatUSA wrote:

PrebenR wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

I must have failed to make it clear that I use pixel-peeping only for the checking of image quality, NOT as a means to "take pictures of details".

Pixel-peeping does not show the image quality, at all.

I bow to your superior digital photographic knowledge.

I recant: pixel-peeping does NOT reveal:

- Artifacts

- CA

- Blur

- Noise

All images should be assessed only after zooming smoothed so as to fit fully within the viewing medium, whatever that might be.

It shows sensor/lens capabilities, accuracy of the photograph (in focus). All those aspects can be perfect, and the image is still crap.

Image quality doesn't come from perfect details alone.

Here's a definition of "image quality" for you to disagree with, all or in part:

It's for camera phones but just as applicable to other imagers, I reckon:

http://www.imatest.com/solutions/cpiq/

I will of course give your opinion much more weight than that of Norman Koren and Imatest.

A picture of a beautiful girl on the beach has a much higher image quality than a small, artificially-generated, pixel-sized mesh.

Not to say a stone on a pickup truck. See the forest not the trees. These threads are just stupid.

Thank you for pointing out my glaring error. Please feel free to have the coveted Last Word.

'bye ...

-- hide signature --

Ted

-- hide signature --

Don't blame the camera
Still trying to upgrade photographer body

PrebenR Veteran Member • Posts: 4,146
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

BenThomas1 wrote:

The build quality, general design and “feel” of the DP2M is excellent. It’s a brick of a camera; hefty, though not too heavy. There’s little by way of ergonomic concessions (grips and such), but it still falls to hand nicely. It’s hard to describe, but there’s a tactile “rightness” to the DP2M that eludes many other cameras, and its clean appearance says that this is a camera with a purpose, not a generalized tool. Nevertheless, a third-party finger grip would be welcome, and I know that there is at least one on the way. It will be reported on here when I get an opportunity to try it.

There was several. Gariz half case, a tape on grip and a L-bracket grip. The latter is still available.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m4084.l1313&_nkw=dp2+merrill+grip&_odkw=dp2+merrill+half+case&_osacat=107894

Of the three I like the tape on grip the most, but for tripod usage the L-bracket is very nice.

//www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m4084.l1313&_nkw=dp2+merrill+grip&_odkw=dp2+merrill+half+case&_osacat=107894

-- hide signature --

Don't blame the camera
Still trying to upgrade photographer body

Macrae Junior Member • Posts: 49
Re: I recant
1

docmaas wrote:

MyReality wrote:

Definition: Bias -"prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

My experience in commuting with people on this forum about Foveon sensors and prints leads me to conclude that they are not susceptible to logic. They give me subjective opinions about how great the results of Foveon sensors are, but when I suggest an objective test to determine the validity of their opinion some of them became upset. In other words. how can what they say be wrong, it is their opinion?

I am not making a positive or negative statement about Foveon sensor output. Does the output make a practical difference in the real world that would be noticeable?

Please don't mistake the cloud of confirmation bias that you have exhibited in this response for any kind of objective assessment. You're no different than the rest of us... completely incapable, that is, of seeing the truth without extensive empirical investigation which a few conversations on this forum does not so constitute.

That aside are you a native speaker of English?

Does anyone know the definition of defensiveness?

I don't think we need Samuel Johnson's dictionary for that as the two previous posts give us perfect examples or Ms. Manner's book on Etiquette on how to be so warmly welcoming to Mr. MyReality. Great job!

With Sony and Canon and Nikon speeding into the future, one has to be a little realistic on where even the latest and greatest Foveon offering will find itself in the marketplace.

I tested a Fuji GFX, Fuji X Pro 2, Sigma SDQ and Sigma SD14 in an identical studio setup and made 16x24 inch prints from each. Remarkably there was no clear winner,  only a clear loser, the X Pro 2. The point is that the practical difference in real world (not virtual) output was indistinguishable.

Perhaps the thing to do is concentrate on making better photography rather than testing equipment endlessly and being disappointed in our inability to resolve the absolute finest detail.

MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: I recant
1

"Please don't mistake the cloud of confirmation bias that you have exhibited in this response for any kind of objective assessment. You're no different than the rest of us... completely incapable, that is, of seeing the truth without extensive empirical investigation which a few conversations on this forum does not so constitute.
That aside are you a native speaker of English?"

Wow!  Did you actually write those two paragraphs?

"confirmation bias" - are you against confirming anything with objective testing"

"seeing the truth without extensive empirical investigation" - When it comes to a scientific claim made by one person, no.  One persons opinion is not always the truth.  The truth of some things can only be verified by data.

At one time, the Catholic church said that the sun revolves around the earth, Copernicus proved them wrong with science.

Yes, I am a native speaker of English.  I am also a speaker of math and logic.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
docmaas
docmaas Veteran Member • Posts: 6,523
Re: I recant

MyReality wrote:

"Please don't mistake the cloud of confirmation bias that you have exhibited in this response for any kind of objective assessment. You're no different than the rest of us... completely incapable, that is, of seeing the truth without extensive empirical investigation which a few conversations on this forum does not so constitute.
That aside are you a native speaker of English?"

Wow! Did you actually write those two paragraphs?

Of course I did. Did you understand them?

"confirmation bias" - are you against confirming anything with objective testing"

The referent for "confirmation" in confirmation bias is prior experience, the impact of which on present experience is to obscure the present by forcing its interpretation in terms of the past. That's why empirical evidence is essential to overcoming it. You stated an opinion based on prior experience about a current situation and thereby prevent a fresh experience of the present that might, if allowed to present itself more objectively, actually alter the current experience to a fresher and perhaps more revealing understanding. To support your assertion about the characteristics of foveon users you need to find a way to empirically test the assertions. Failing to do so leaves it as a simple opinion and one necessarily tainted by prior experience.

Here is an early account of the recognition of confirmation bias though it is not so named:

For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should seem to be occupied with things mean and transitory; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections colour and infect the understanding. [Francis Bacon, "Novum Organum," 1620]

found here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/bias

Yes, I am a native speaker of English. I am also a speaker of math and logic.

Good for you. I just noticed your use of "commuting" for communicating and wondered if it was a typo or a non native speakers mistake. Apparently it was a typo. Had it not been I would have complemented you on your English because the rest of the writing would have been very good for a non native.  That's why I asked.

-- hide signature --

"Dao ke dao, fei chang dao. Ming ke ming, fei chang ming" Laozi
"At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past."
Maurice Maeterlinck

xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,674
Moderators: please lock this thread ... n/t
1

No text.

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: I recant
2

You quoted a passage from Francis Bacon.  He was a philosopher not a scientist.  Belief and faith are not the same thing as scientific proof.  I repeat, your opinion on anything is not proof of anything.  What you say is truth, does not make it truth.

I suggested an objective test to remove most bias and see with sensors give the best prints but you ignored that.  Re-read my post about Copernicus.

Try to use some logic and scientific method thought in your next post.  Albert Einstein would not have been believed if he just said "I believe it, therefore it has to be true".  Do you believe in flying saucers, because some people claim to have seen them?

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
Macrae Junior Member • Posts: 49
Re: Moderators: please lock this thread ... n/t
1

xpatUSA wrote:

No! No! Let it go. This is the most interesting thing I've read here in years!!!!

As Don Jr. says, I love it!

docmaas
docmaas Veteran Member • Posts: 6,523
Re: I recant
3

MyReality wrote:

You quoted a passage from Francis Bacon. He was a philosopher not a scientist. Belief and faith are not the same thing as scientific proof. I repeat, your opinion on anything is not proof of anything. What you say is truth, does not make it truth.

One who denies based on the status or role of the individual who makes the statement commits the logical error of fallacy of authority.  What Francis Bacon was or did does not deter from the validity of his writing/thinking.

I suggested an objective test to remove most bias and see with sensors give the best prints but you ignored that. Re-read my post about Copernicus.

Sorry, not interested in this nor in your other attempts to redirect the conversation.

Try to use some logic and scientific method thought in your next post. Albert Einstein would not have been believed if he just said "I believe it, therefore it has to be true". Do you believe in flying saucers, because some people claim to have seen them?

I'll ignore the above as I have the other attempts to change the subject.

My original critique  about your confirmation bias stands unresponded to.  You have repeatedly attempted to change the topic with non sequiturs believing, I assume, that these somehow address my original point which they do not.  Moreover, when I don't respond to them you assume it is because I don't agree.  In fact I may well agree with some of them but you have no way of knowing if I do since I haven't addressed them.   Instead you accuse me of not agreeing, not believing, and other assorted things you seem to think I believe or even said despite the fact that I have not addressed them at all.

However, I tire of this fruitless discussion and my last response was simply an attempt to help you understand the original criticism I made which was simply that your opinion was nothing more than an opinion and that any "objective" understanding of any phenomenon is unavoidably tainted by prior experience the process of which is termed "confirmation bias."  I also said that you were no different in that aspect than any other person myself included.  None of us are able to see anything as it actually is; everything observed is seen the context of past experience.

I've ignored your various assertions because they were non sequiturs to my original response to you having nothing to do with the topic of "confirmation bias".

I'm through with this discussion however and you may have the last word.

Mike

Apologies to Ted who originated this thread.  Thanks to those who found it entertaining.

-- hide signature --

"Dao ke dao, fei chang dao. Ming ke ming, fei chang ming" Laozi
"At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past."
Maurice Maeterlinck

xpatUSA
OP xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 15,674
Re: I recant

docmaas wrote:

MyReality wrote:

You quoted a passage from Francis Bacon. He was a philosopher not a scientist. Belief and faith are not the same thing as scientific proof. I repeat, your opinion on anything is not proof of anything. What you say is truth, does not make it truth.

One who denies based on the status or role of the individual who makes the statement commits the logical error of fallacy of authority. What Francis Bacon was or did does not deter from the validity of his writing/thinking.

I suggested an objective test to remove most bias and see with sensors give the best prints but you ignored that. Re-read my post about Copernicus.

Sorry, not interested in this nor in your other attempts to redirect the conversation.

Try to use some logic and scientific method thought in your next post. Albert Einstein would not have been believed if he just said "I believe it, therefore it has to be true". Do you believe in flying saucers, because some people claim to have seen them?

I'll ignore the above as I have the other attempts to change the subject.

My original critique about your confirmation bias stands unresponded to. You have repeatedly attempted to change the topic with non sequiturs believing, I assume, that these somehow address my original point which they do not. Moreover, when I don't respond to them you assume it is because I don't agree. In fact I may well agree with some of them but you have no way of knowing if I do since I haven't addressed them. Instead you accuse me of not agreeing, not believing, and other assorted things you seem to think I believe or even said despite the fact that I have not addressed them at all.

However, I tire of this fruitless discussion and my last response was simply an attempt to help you understand the original criticism I made which was simply that your opinion was nothing more than an opinion and that any "objective" understanding of any phenomenon is unavoidably tainted by prior experience the process of which is termed "confirmation bias." I also said that you were no different in that aspect than any other person myself included. None of us are able to see anything as it actually is; everything observed is seen the context of past experience.

I've ignored your various assertions because they were non sequiturs to my original response to you having nothing to do with the topic of "confirmation bias".

I'm through with this discussion however and you may have the last word.

Mike

Apologies to Ted who originated this thread.

Apology accepted, Mike.

In post #8 of this this thread, I said to Scott:

"Never mind, Scott - now that @MyReality has joined us, the thread is doomed."

Thanks to those who found it entertaining.

-- hide signature --

Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD15 +17 more
docmaas
docmaas Veteran Member • Posts: 6,523
Re: I recant

xpatUSA wrote:

docmaas wrote:

MyReality wrote:

You quoted a passage from Francis Bacon. He was a philosopher not a scientist. Belief and faith are not the same thing as scientific proof. I repeat, your opinion on anything is not proof of anything. What you say is truth, does not make it truth.

One who denies based on the status or role of the individual who makes the statement commits the logical error of fallacy of authority. What Francis Bacon was or did does not deter from the validity of his writing/thinking.

I suggested an objective test to remove most bias and see with sensors give the best prints but you ignored that. Re-read my post about Copernicus.

Sorry, not interested in this nor in your other attempts to redirect the conversation.

Try to use some logic and scientific method thought in your next post. Albert Einstein would not have been believed if he just said "I believe it, therefore it has to be true". Do you believe in flying saucers, because some people claim to have seen them?

I'll ignore the above as I have the other attempts to change the subject.

My original critique about your confirmation bias stands unresponded to. You have repeatedly attempted to change the topic with non sequiturs believing, I assume, that these somehow address my original point which they do not. Moreover, when I don't respond to them you assume it is because I don't agree. In fact I may well agree with some of them but you have no way of knowing if I do since I haven't addressed them. Instead you accuse me of not agreeing, not believing, and other assorted things you seem to think I believe or even said despite the fact that I have not addressed them at all.

However, I tire of this fruitless discussion and my last response was simply an attempt to help you understand the original criticism I made which was simply that your opinion was nothing more than an opinion and that any "objective" understanding of any phenomenon is unavoidably tainted by prior experience the process of which is termed "confirmation bias." I also said that you were no different in that aspect than any other person myself included. None of us are able to see anything as it actually is; everything observed is seen the context of past experience.

I've ignored your various assertions because they were non sequiturs to my original response to you having nothing to do with the topic of "confirmation bias".

I'm through with this discussion however and you may have the last word.

Mike

Apologies to Ted who originated this thread.

Apology accepted, Mike.

In post #8 of this this thread, I said to Scott:

"Never mind, Scott - now that @MyReality has joined us, the thread is doomed."

Thanks to those who found it entertaining.

And now I know why. ;<)

-- hide signature --

"Dao ke dao, fei chang dao. Ming ke ming, fei chang ming" Laozi
"At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past."
Maurice Maeterlinck

Adielle
Adielle Senior Member • Posts: 1,754
Re: I recant
3

docmaas wrote:

MyReality wrote:

You quoted a passage from Francis Bacon. He was a philosopher not a scientist. Belief and faith are not the same thing as scientific proof. I repeat, your opinion on anything is not proof of anything. What you say is truth, does not make it truth.

One who denies based on the status or role of the individual who makes the statement commits the logical error of fallacy of authority. What Francis Bacon was or did does not deter from the validity of his writing/thinking.

I suggested an objective test to remove most bias and see with sensors give the best prints but you ignored that. Re-read my post about Copernicus.

Sorry, not interested in this nor in your other attempts to redirect the conversation.

Try to use some logic and scientific method thought in your next post. Albert Einstein would not have been believed if he just said "I believe it, therefore it has to be true". Do you believe in flying saucers, because some people claim to have seen them?

I'll ignore the above as I have the other attempts to change the subject.

My original critique about your confirmation bias stands unresponded to. You have repeatedly attempted to change the topic with non sequiturs believing, I assume, that these somehow address my original point which they do not. Moreover, when I don't respond to them you assume it is because I don't agree. In fact I may well agree with some of them but you have no way of knowing if I do since I haven't addressed them. Instead you accuse me of not agreeing, not believing, and other assorted things you seem to think I believe or even said despite the fact that I have not addressed them at all.

However, I tire of this fruitless discussion and my last response was simply an attempt to help you understand the original criticism I made which was simply that your opinion was nothing more than an opinion and that any "objective" understanding of any phenomenon is unavoidably tainted by prior experience the process of which is termed "confirmation bias." I also said that you were no different in that aspect than any other person myself included. None of us are able to see anything as it actually is; everything observed is seen the context of past experience.

I've ignored your various assertions because they were non sequiturs to my original response to you having nothing to do with the topic of "confirmation bias".

I'm through with this discussion however and you may have the last word.

Mike

Apologies to Ted who originated this thread. Thanks to those who found it entertaining.

I've run into all kinds of personal attacks because I dared to point out that well known and thoroughly researched things like confirmation bias affect people including myself all the time in all kinds of fields, so therefore the points that were made were invalid. People are eager to take every single little common deficiency that you point out as a personal attack against them, and the discussion is totally destroyed sooner than you can say "confirmation bias". I wish I had your level of English to be able to write a response as perfect as yours, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able do it even in my native language. You shouldn't apologize for continuing this off course discussion, because your posts lay out some important logic and people who read them may benefit.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads