OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
I am not sure everyone joins the forum to LEARN, or at least it seems that people once did, then decided what they were going to think about products, and decided to stop LEARNING and just make sure people only learn what they consider to be good FACTS. “Listening to these anecdotes also doesn't result in one gaining knowledge, as knowledge is based on fact.” You are wrong about anecdotes, people learn many things from other people’s experiences, and in many cases people use new products sometimes based solely on what their friends have said about it.
Using something because your buddy said it was "awesome sauce" is not what I would describe as learning. Rather this is simply parroting another's claims or mimicking their behaviour without a question as to why, nor taking pause to ponder the legitimacy and basis of any claims made. On the other hand, if Jimmy cuts his hand off with a chainsaw by being stupid, Rob can learn from that experience not to do what Jimmy did. You seem to be intentionally missing the difference here because you see my tone as patronising. Because I am not a fan of additives, anything I say here will be viewed in some "us versus them" light that completely eliminates the possibility of logical and thoughtful discussion.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
People also use anecdotes and recommendations in regards to established oil company products as the many types can be confusing. Knowledge is NOT based on facts alone, this is very narrow minded thinking, and in all seriousness, I cannot imagine a single post in this sub-forum, that you would not have a beef with. It is almost like you just come in here to tell people they are wrong.
Established oil company advertising material may indeed have some anecdotes associated with it. However, it is also backed by industry standard tests and approvals that actually back-up the performance of the product. True knowledge is most certainly based on facts, what else is it based on? This is hardly narrow-minded, take off your blinders and perform some critical thinking here. The true narrow-mindedness is one thinking that they don't need evidence and facts as proof of performance and can simply use "feelings" and anecdotes as legitimate substitutes for those things. There are plenty of posts in this thread alone I don't have issue with, all of them made by people who identify with the idea that facts are required for proof of performance/proof of benefit.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
I do not see how new members would feel confident bringing up any query in this sub-forum, as the slightest whiff of the mention “additive” brings out the flat earth society, all guns blazing!
Flat earth society? I think you have that reversed. We are relying on science, facts and proof whilst those peddling anecdotes, hyperbole, conjecture and make-believe are the flat earth society, dear sir.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Even when you think you are being even handed, you use language like “pandering”, “wizard in a can” and countless other derogatory remarks. Not to mention yourself describing new members need to hear from members who are “more analytical and [offer a] less cheerleading-oriented perspective”. So does this mean people who use additives are not analytical and over enthusiastic for a product? I am not sure, but I think you can get more patronising than this, maybe we still wear nappies?
Yes, new members deserve to be exposed to balanced input from all sides in order to make an informed decision. That means for every wild anecdote that the necessary questions regarding actual proof are posed. Anybody who blindly relies on marketing fluff and doesn't bother to dig for actual proof of performance is indeed not being analytical.
I am not sure everyone joins the forum to LEARN, or at least it seems that people once did, then decided what they were going to think about products, and decided to stop LEARNING and just make sure people only learn what they consider to be good FACTS. “Listening to these anecdotes also doesn't result in one gaining knowledge, as knowledge is based on fact.” You are wrong about anecdotes, people learn many things from other people’s experiences, and in many cases people use new products sometimes based solely on what their friends have said about it.
Using something because your buddy said it was "awesome sauce" is not what I would describe as learning. Rather this is simply parroting another's claims or mimicking their behaviour without a question as to why, nor taking pause to ponder the legitimacy and basis of any claims made. On the other hand, if Jimmy cuts his hand off with a chainsaw by being stupid, Rob can learn from that experience not to do what Jimmy did. You seem to be intentionally missing the difference here because you see my tone as patronising. Because I am not a fan of additives, anything I say here will be viewed in some "us versus them" light that completely eliminates the possibility of logical and thoughtful discussion.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
People also use anecdotes and recommendations in regards to established oil company products as the many types can be confusing. Knowledge is NOT based on facts alone, this is very narrow minded thinking, and in all seriousness, I cannot imagine a single post in this sub-forum, that you would not have a beef with. It is almost like you just come in here to tell people they are wrong.
Established oil company advertising material may indeed have some anecdotes associated with it. However, it is also backed by industry standard tests and approvals that actually back-up the performance of the product. True knowledge is most certainly based on facts, what else is it based on? This is hardly narrow-minded, take off your blinders and perform some critical thinking here. The true narrow-mindedness is one thinking that they don't need evidence and facts as proof of performance and can simply use "feelings" and anecdotes as legitimate substitutes for those things. There are plenty of posts in this thread alone I don't have issue with, all of them made by people who identify with the idea that facts are required for proof of performance/proof of benefit.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
I do not see how new members would feel confident bringing up any query in this sub-forum, as the slightest whiff of the mention “additive” brings out the flat earth society, all guns blazing!
Flat earth society? I think you have that reversed. We are relying on science, facts and proof whilst those peddling anecdotes, hyperbole, conjecture and make-believe are the flat earth society, dear sir.
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Even when you think you are being even handed, you use language like “pandering”, “wizard in a can” and countless other derogatory remarks. Not to mention yourself describing new members need to hear from members who are “more analytical and [offer a] less cheerleading-oriented perspective”. So does this mean people who use additives are not analytical and over enthusiastic for a product? I am not sure, but I think you can get more patronising than this, maybe we still wear nappies?
Yes, new members deserve to be exposed to balanced input from all sides in order to make an informed decision. That means for every wild anecdote that the necessary questions regarding actual proof are posed. Anybody who blindly relies on marketing fluff and doesn't bother to dig for actual proof of performance is indeed not being analytical.
