2 Trying a different approach.
source | link

I'm a new kid on the block but I would tend to tackle it like this:

Claim: [The device] brings water back into [its] natural form.

Verdict: Unverifiable pufferyNot amenable to skeptical inquiry.

(Which, okay, is redundant, but forgive me one extra word of clarification.)

I think This has the fundamental issue is that puffery is not actuallypotential to cover a claim, in any proper sense, and thus isn't really even properly within scopelot of this SEground -- perhaps too much. On the other hand, I think this SE Everything from old classics like "There is wella God" to more-served by not shutting down (the often short) threads on such subjectsmodern "These magnets will make you feel better".

Possibly a good candidate for an FAQ, whatever approach is approved.

I'm a new kid on the block but I would tend to tackle it like this:

Claim: [The device] brings water back into [its] natural form.

Verdict: Unverifiable puffery.

(Which, okay, is redundant, but forgive me one extra word of clarification.)

I think the fundamental issue is that puffery is not actually a claim, in any proper sense, and thus isn't really even properly within scope of this SE. On the other hand, I think this SE is well-served by not shutting down (the often short) threads on such subjects.

Possibly a good candidate for an FAQ, whatever approach is approved.

I'm a new kid on the block but I would tend to tackle it like this:

Claim: [The device] brings water back into [its] natural form.

Verdict: Not amenable to skeptical inquiry.

This has the potential to cover a lot of ground -- perhaps too much. Everything from old classics like "There is a God" to more-modern "These magnets will make you feel better".

Possibly a good candidate for an FAQ, whatever approach is approved.

1
source | link

I'm a new kid on the block but I would tend to tackle it like this:

Claim: [The device] brings water back into [its] natural form.

Verdict: Unverifiable puffery.

(Which, okay, is redundant, but forgive me one extra word of clarification.)

I think the fundamental issue is that puffery is not actually a claim, in any proper sense, and thus isn't really even properly within scope of this SE. On the other hand, I think this SE is well-served by not shutting down (the often short) threads on such subjects.

Possibly a good candidate for an FAQ, whatever approach is approved.