I found the quote by Jonathan Swith about how quickly lies spread to be particularly pertinent to the matter discussed in this post.
Last week I made two posts where I discussed some erroneous information being given by two different people in separate discussions, but which contained the same misinformation.
I used the second post to discuss the erroneous claims, but neither commenter responded to my request to discuss their claims, so I didn’t have the chance to inquire about what their source was.
I presumed their claims were based upon what they had “heard from others” since both referenced things being done by other people.
Common to both discussions was the Blaze intake compared with other products, bench testing, and vehicle recorded data.
Connecting the dots led back to my look at the claims EQT makes for this intake, where I found them to be unsubstantiated, and I pointed this fact out to other enthusiasts.
The two enthusiasts above were repeating Ed Susman’s unsubstantiated claims almost verbatim four months after the original comments were made.
In Ed’s comments, he immediately changes the subject from the unsubstantiated product claim to making accusations about “inadequate flow benches“, “ignoring real-world data“, and “flawed testing“, which is an implementation of the Red Herring logical fallacy.
A red herring fallacy refers to an attempt to change the subject and divert attention from the original issue. In other words, a seemingly solid but ultimately irrelevant argument is introduced into the discussion, either on purpose or by mistake.
As a result, one can divert others’ attention away from the original discussion topic or avoid answering a difficult question.Scribbr
The fact that Ed’s disinformation has become widespread is not too surprising, in the discussions that followed he repeated his claims over and over again to different people:
A noteworthy point about the statements Ed is making is the absence of substantiation. There are even instances such as the next statement where Ed claims that he “provided real world data” yet he doesn’t present the person with evidence to show that what he is claiming is true.
Here again, Ed claims that something was “shown” yet does not provide the person with any evidence to support his claim.
Ed Susman, the owner of Equilibrium Tuning, is the source of disinformation that two enthusiasts repeated to me and several others.
Ed’s comments shown above are a good example of how to implement a “red herring” logical fallacy (deliberately trying to derail a discussion from the issue at hand to a new, unrelated topic.)
There are two noteworthy problems with Ed Susman’s words and actions:
The first is that Ed failed to address his business’s unsubstantiated product claims that can be misleading to consumers.
The second is that Ed made multiple unsubstantiated claims in an effort to discredit me, the work I have done, and the tools I have used in another effort to mislead consumers.
The words and actions of Ed Susman, which have misled consumers, illustrate the need for consumers to look for evidence when claims are made. Otherwise, falsehoods will fly.