Konnichiwa,
I have doen so previously. It is indeed this group specifically who I am refering to as audio pelicanists and whose statistical methodes are geared to reliably producing null results for all but extremely audible changes in the best possible experiemnental setups and whose experimentals have been riliably of such a nature and state that one may very well alledge that they deliberatly are trying to eliminate any possible chance of the audibility of changes regardless of their statistics. These people behave exactly accrding to what the webster definition of a charlatan specifies and are clearly operating unscientifically and with obvious prejudice and manipulation of facts.
Their experimental data should be henceforth be dismissed as:
1) Based on misapplication of statistics
2) Deliberate manipulation of the test envoironment to reduce the possibility of small differenes being audible
3) The deliberate misrepresentation of their experimental data
Sayonara
TNT said:
I have doen so previously. It is indeed this group specifically who I am refering to as audio pelicanists and whose statistical methodes are geared to reliably producing null results for all but extremely audible changes in the best possible experiemnental setups and whose experimentals have been riliably of such a nature and state that one may very well alledge that they deliberatly are trying to eliminate any possible chance of the audibility of changes regardless of their statistics. These people behave exactly accrding to what the webster definition of a charlatan specifies and are clearly operating unscientifically and with obvious prejudice and manipulation of facts.
Their experimental data should be henceforth be dismissed as:
1) Based on misapplication of statistics
2) Deliberate manipulation of the test envoironment to reduce the possibility of small differenes being audible
3) The deliberate misrepresentation of their experimental data
Sayonara
Variac said:
I wasn't advocating the use of Shakti stones, but I can see how you might have gained that impression. I was trying to answer the question, by testing Shakti stones, could we win Randi's $1M? Answering this question involves a subtle definitional problem lying at the bottom of Randi's challenge, which plays itself out as follows in the present context under the following assumption. Assume Shakti stones make an audible difference in a manner allowing someone (say, a reviewer) to demonstrate, in a statistically significant way (ie, in a way that win's Randi's challenge), their presence or absence in the test set-up. Such a demonstration would not win Randi's $1M because the effect demonstrated has a scientifically plausible explanation. No paranormal effect will have been demonstrated.
Yes, IMO. Randi's challenge applies to people like Sylvia Browne who claims, among other things, to predict the future. Randi told her (on Larry King, actually), predict the future in a testable fashion and I'll give you $1M. If Sylvia had taken Randi up on his challenge and did in fact predict the future, she would have walked away with his $1M because she would have demonstrated the existence of the paranormal. FWIW, I would called such demonstration a demonstration of the existence of the normal, because something that exists is being demonstrated. I think your confusion arises from the circularity lying at a deeper level of Randi's challenge. Because he is a hunter of what he styles as frauds, his challenge, really, is: demonstrate to me the existence of something that doesn't exist and I'll give you $1M. Pretty safe bet.
Cheers.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I personally would not be surprised if we were visited by non-earth life. Actually, I would be surprised, but only because the meeting of lifeforms from two different planets poses difficult problems of time in the discovery process. Here's a fact from hard science: four of the 17 stars closest to us have planets. There are an estimated 100B stars in our galaxy. Assuming our observation of the said 17 stars is representative, about 25% of all stars have planets, meaning some 25B stars in our galaxy have planets, meaning, in my little world, life undoubtedly exists elsewhere in our galaxy. Our galaxy, I wouldn't be surprised to hear, is teeming with life.
If the crystals work as such, they work, as such. Lacking an explanation is no foundation for rejecting observations.
By the way, Thorsten, you might be interested in Ervin Laszlo's "The Connectivity Hypothesis." Fascinating read which draw on works like Popp's "What is Life," itself gripping. Holy cow.
Re: Best regards from Ben Piazza.
I just got back from Holland and found an email of Mr Piazza, where he referred to our phone conversation. The above quote is from my, err, quote of that conversation. Mr Piazza makes it clear that this is not his position and that I misunderstood him. That is very well possible, and I want to make it clear that in fact Mr Piazza does not entertain the believe that RF/EMI influences directly perception. With apologies to Mr Piazza.
There is more in his email about the grapgs on the Dymo test, but I need more time to catch up with at least 4 pages of posts and his lengthy email.
I'll be back!
Jan Didden
janneman said:
I just got back from Holland and found an email of Mr Piazza, where he referred to our phone conversation. The above quote is from my, err, quote of that conversation. Mr Piazza makes it clear that this is not his position and that I misunderstood him. That is very well possible, and I want to make it clear that in fact Mr Piazza does not entertain the believe that RF/EMI influences directly perception. With apologies to Mr Piazza.
There is more in his email about the grapgs on the Dymo test, but I need more time to catch up with at least 4 pages of posts and his lengthy email.
I'll be back!
Jan Didden
serengetiplains said:
Tom,
Agreed 100%. But if such a purported event, which COULD be possible, after all we don't know yet, flies in the face of everything that IS known, it requires quite extraordinary strong and verifiable evidence to prove it, in fact turning upsite down all those established laws or rules that fit a very large body of events already. That is science.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Hi Jan,
I agree that overturning established laws or rules requires strong evidence. Here is a perspective I've toyed with. An established rule can be likened to a map that abstracts certain features of a given context in an approximate way. The abstract, approximate nature of the map ever can only account for a limited number of observations, always with room for fine tuning on the edges. My sense is that instances of "overturning" are rare, and that established rules are either subtly modified to account for small exceptions (slightly expanding or clarifying the map) or, more rarely, are consigned a new role in an overall larger theoretical framework, as Newton's laws were in respect of relativity (viewing the map as an aspect or limited application of an overall larger map).
Then there exists that category of observations for which we currently have no accepted rule, some of which observations have been with us a long time. Take, for instance, the mechanism by which cells differentiate to create an organism. Scientists have long wondered, where is the template for the organism within the fertilised cell? An entirely new framework might have to be devised to account for such observations which, for their part, are quite established as observations.
Are we talking here about establishing a new observation within a known rule, or establishing a new rule for a known observation?
Tom
serengetiplains said:
Tom , I agree with the thrust of your post, but unfortunately your example is not the best.
That one has been solved, or at least a plausible and credible explanation is available and accepted by many in the field. Read for instance Bright Air, Brilliant Fire by Gerald Edelman about how neuronal cells and networks 'know' how to (re)configure themselves. (Hint: Read up on Darwin).Jan Didden
Jan, I just want to clear this up, if possible. First, Ben has 2 types of info on his website. He has his: patent, RF measurements, and even auto performance evaluations. However, he also has pictures of customer's uses of his Shakti Stone in all kinds of 'improbable' places. Let's just say that I believe the 'probable', but I personally take no position on the 'improbable' because I can't see an obvious reason for it, perhaps a real brick or stone could do just as well in many locations shown, and also I wasn't there to listen for a difference. Now, I realize that many of you JUMPED on the 'improbable' without really looking at the 'probable'.
I personally believe that the Shakti Stones work as RF absorbers, BETTER than aluminum foil, in many applications. These applications include, RF generating, or sensitive to RF, IC chips. INPUTS and OUTPUTS where RFI could be important, etc etc. I make no argument for the 'improbable', except to say that the customer can pay his money and take his choice.
I personally believe that the Shakti Stones work as RF absorbers, BETTER than aluminum foil, in many applications. These applications include, RF generating, or sensitive to RF, IC chips. INPUTS and OUTPUTS where RFI could be important, etc etc. I make no argument for the 'improbable', except to say that the customer can pay his money and take his choice.
I don't believe I'm confused. I understand the situation you are describing. It isn't a complicated point. But the bet is safe only if he is able to always detect fraud.
The difference between Shakti stones and Belt pictures in the fridge may only be that the the Belt folks make more outrageous claims based on ideas that have no cursory connection to any scientific idea. It is interesting that the place that one sees the most dubious claims for products are Autos and Audio. Small changes in either are hard to prove and they are subjects that people are emotionally involved with.
Yes, I know science is a tool that does some things better than others. There was a fad of applying science to any field, such as art which somewhat misses the point.
There are more than one religion here.
Kwei has proposed the religion he sees.
Another one is the idea that every item matters in sound reproduction, and it appears that they also seem to accept any device as functional and useful in some circumstance.
This religion now has made up a name to call the "enemy"
Pelicanists, Infidels, it's the same thing.. nothing can be questioned...
I would propose that most people here are in the middle. They are sceptical of some devices, but buy others "because it couldn't hurt" They carefully tweak their circuits for the best sound. Maybe those double blind tests ARE a little diorienting to the testees they figure
I have made Cat 5 speaker cables because I figure they MIGHT help. Others might buy Stones for the same reason- although they probably have more money than I do- In fact that might be the major difference!
The article that Mr. Pink linked to does point out that there are excesses of rhetoric on both sides. The ABX thread seems to me to agree that there are differences between speakers, phono carts, amps, tape decks, some components in extreme cases,
Even if you don't tlike the ABX folks, maybe they give us a good clue as to where the biggest improvements are available..
Hi,
While I'm in total agreement when it comes to actual measurements of "perceived" improvements in audio being a subjective experience, I very much doubt a car owner would perceive a difference in performance that's simply not measureable.
If the Shakti stones have an effect on the CPU of an engine then surely, there must be ways to actually measure this and make it appear on the performance charts. Be that in the way of a reduction in fuel consumption, a gain in torque, brute horse power...whatever.
Whether the actual measurements shown on their website are "for real" is easy enough to find out by a mere duplication of the tests, this time done by a third party.
As a sidebar:
Would it be technically possible to measure, by way of microphone recordings for instance, inroom performance of a system with or without a particular treatment/tweak and compare the results to see if these show up any differences?
Cheers,
While I'm in total agreement when it comes to actual measurements of "perceived" improvements in audio being a subjective experience, I very much doubt a car owner would perceive a difference in performance that's simply not measureable.
If the Shakti stones have an effect on the CPU of an engine then surely, there must be ways to actually measure this and make it appear on the performance charts. Be that in the way of a reduction in fuel consumption, a gain in torque, brute horse power...whatever.
Whether the actual measurements shown on their website are "for real" is easy enough to find out by a mere duplication of the tests, this time done by a third party.
As a sidebar:
Would it be technically possible to measure, by way of microphone recordings for instance, inroom performance of a system with or without a particular treatment/tweak and compare the results to see if these show up any differences?
Cheers,
Konnichiwa,
Actually, sorry, I disagree that your position describes science.
It describes something that makes the a priori assumption that everything contrary to it's "laws" is "wrong" and demands NOT ordinary proof, but refuses TO EVEN CONSIDER INVESTIGATION unless furnished with proof considered "EXTRAORDINARY", or in other words far beyound that which it would accept if the proposed position agreed with the "Law we received".
Funny, to me that sounds a lot like religion and NOTHING LIKE science, which is after all KNOWLEDGE. The position ypu present as being scientific, that is desirous of knowledge in fact strikes me as the opposite of that, namely as rejecting knowledge.
I am aware that is in fact the position prevalent in certain circles who style themselves as "scientific" and is by far not limited to Audio, but that makes it no more right than for example endless repetition of the claism of "doppler distortion" in full range speakers makes this distortion any more real than it is (namely not at all).
So, can we all get of this religion trip and instead look at the FACTS from a scientific perspective and that speciically is not just about shakti stones and maybe not at all about them.
Sayonara
janneman said:
Actually, sorry, I disagree that your position describes science.
It describes something that makes the a priori assumption that everything contrary to it's "laws" is "wrong" and demands NOT ordinary proof, but refuses TO EVEN CONSIDER INVESTIGATION unless furnished with proof considered "EXTRAORDINARY", or in other words far beyound that which it would accept if the proposed position agreed with the "Law we received".
Funny, to me that sounds a lot like religion and NOTHING LIKE science, which is after all KNOWLEDGE. The position ypu present as being scientific, that is desirous of knowledge in fact strikes me as the opposite of that, namely as rejecting knowledge.
I am aware that is in fact the position prevalent in certain circles who style themselves as "scientific" and is by far not limited to Audio, but that makes it no more right than for example endless repetition of the claism of "doppler distortion" in full range speakers makes this distortion any more real than it is (namely not at all).
So, can we all get of this religion trip and instead look at the FACTS from a scientific perspective and that speciically is not just about shakti stones and maybe not at all about them.
Sayonara
fdegrove said:
Audible differences ought to be measurable somehow. But might current measurement techniques might be too crude to show the kinds of differences we're talking about? Perhaps the electrical output of an amplifier could be digitized --- tweak in, tweak out --- and the resulting waveforms compared at high resolution. But one must then factor for digitizing errors etc which might throw the entire test.
Where comes the point where one is faced with a question like: how does one actually see a photon?
Hi,
If both recordings A and B were made the same way with the sole difference being the tweak in question I was wondering if it would be possible to "null out" the two with hopefully just the difference left.
Maybe the method is too crude, I don't know how precise it should be in this case.
Isn't that one of those so called UFOs?
Cheers,
If both recordings A and B were made the same way with the sole difference being the tweak in question I was wondering if it would be possible to "null out" the two with hopefully just the difference left.
Maybe the method is too crude, I don't know how precise it should be in this case.
Isn't that one of those so called UFOs?
Cheers,
Being totally honest here:
With a full tank of gas my car feels more lively (and it's heavier!)
That is an experience many people tell me they share!
It is very unlikely that someone would feel a 1 or 2 horsepower increase in an auto. There are many pages of devices for sale in the back of auto mags that promise horsepower increase- Is it a conspiracy that GM doesn't put little magnets on their fuel lines to "realign the molecules" or buy one of the many "special spark plug" patents, or just sell a can of "instant engine rebuild" or do they (as Rod points out) have equipment accurate enought to actually measure the difference (at the cost of millions)
In audio, often I make changes and the system sounds better,
Why? maybe the same as above? Or, is the reproduction of music so flawed, that it is easy to make a change, and that change may be different rather than better, or is it really better. I don't know, but I DO know that humans are easily fooled about things like this and I think it takes self-delusion to think otherwise.
Some audiophile systems sound very very good - no doubt about that. That's why we're here....
With a full tank of gas my car feels more lively (and it's heavier!)
That is an experience many people tell me they share!
It is very unlikely that someone would feel a 1 or 2 horsepower increase in an auto. There are many pages of devices for sale in the back of auto mags that promise horsepower increase- Is it a conspiracy that GM doesn't put little magnets on their fuel lines to "realign the molecules" or buy one of the many "special spark plug" patents, or just sell a can of "instant engine rebuild" or do they (as Rod points out) have equipment accurate enought to actually measure the difference (at the cost of millions)
In audio, often I make changes and the system sounds better,
Why? maybe the same as above? Or, is the reproduction of music so flawed, that it is easy to make a change, and that change may be different rather than better, or is it really better. I don't know, but I DO know that humans are easily fooled about things like this and I think it takes self-delusion to think otherwise.
Some audiophile systems sound very very good - no doubt about that. That's why we're here....
Hi,
Contradictionary as it may seem...
It's quite likely due to increased grip on the road because of the added weight.
Quite often, while we try something new, we precondition ourselves, fooling ourselves into believing that it will sound better because:
- we've been told that it should...
Ever heard that sales trick that starts with : " In a system with sufficient resolution the difference will be night and day?"
Surely we all like to believe our system is at least good enough for that to be audible so we convince ourselves into believing that it does indeed sound better.
-what is "better"?
We would need a reliable yardstick to see if at least "better" is closer to accurate....Rather that's what I'd want for myself anyway.
OTOH, for a lot of people "better" often means more enjoyable...
Can't really blame them for that but then we're inevitably entering the realms of personal taste and there sure is no end to that....
As for the car and HP analogy: it all depends on the realtionships of power/weight/torque whether or not you'd actually feel the couple of extra horses under the hood...(John Curl being a Porsche driver should be able to confirm that...)
I suppose it's the same with a hi-fi system, at least on a lot of occasions; the finer the state of tune the system the faster any change is perceived: sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
Gee, sounds like marriage vows...
Cheers,
Contradictionary as it may seem...
It's quite likely due to increased grip on the road because of the added weight.
Quite often, while we try something new, we precondition ourselves, fooling ourselves into believing that it will sound better because:
- we've been told that it should...
Ever heard that sales trick that starts with : " In a system with sufficient resolution the difference will be night and day?"
Surely we all like to believe our system is at least good enough for that to be audible so we convince ourselves into believing that it does indeed sound better.
-what is "better"?
We would need a reliable yardstick to see if at least "better" is closer to accurate....Rather that's what I'd want for myself anyway.
OTOH, for a lot of people "better" often means more enjoyable...
Can't really blame them for that but then we're inevitably entering the realms of personal taste and there sure is no end to that....
As for the car and HP analogy: it all depends on the realtionships of power/weight/torque whether or not you'd actually feel the couple of extra horses under the hood...(John Curl being a Porsche driver should be able to confirm that...)
I suppose it's the same with a hi-fi system, at least on a lot of occasions; the finer the state of tune the system the faster any change is perceived: sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
Gee, sounds like marriage vows...
Cheers,
fdegrove said:Hi,
If both recordings A and B were made the same way with the sole difference being the tweak in question I was wondering if it would be possible to "null out" the two with hopefully just the difference left.
Maybe the method is too crude, I don't know how precise it should be in this case.
Cheers,
Frank, didn't you post earlier that you thought the difference the stones produce-if any-was probably not due to differences in the audio signal, but due to some condition which reduces listener fatigue? I believe we were talking about RF energy at the time.
If you believe that, wouldn't the nulling test be invalid?
Lateral Thoughts...
Hi,
Maybe I did but even if that's the case I fail to see why the difference between the two conditions couldn't be recorded and compared in a differential way...
After all, listening fatigue is signal induced (doesn't have to come straight from the audio system, it could be present in the environment) and the recording should be made in the room, not necessarily the signal taken straight from the amps....At least that was the idea I had.
Granted, I have my doubts to what the mikes are capable of picking up as far as RFI/EMI goes but maybe some equipment is out there that can do it...
IOW, even with no audio system in the room and a measurement system capable of measuring the presence of RFI/EMI, could it detect the presence or absence of the Shakti effect.
That's what I'm wondering about really.
Clearly, or so I'd hope, someone somehow must have found out it's effect and assuming for a minute it does reduce listening fatigue (which is closely related to stress) I conclude from that it would also reduce stress in the room it is present in?
Somewhat similar to KYW's crystals analogy I suppose..but I could be wrong just the same.
Cheers,
Hi,
Maybe I did but even if that's the case I fail to see why the difference between the two conditions couldn't be recorded and compared in a differential way...
After all, listening fatigue is signal induced (doesn't have to come straight from the audio system, it could be present in the environment) and the recording should be made in the room, not necessarily the signal taken straight from the amps....At least that was the idea I had.
Granted, I have my doubts to what the mikes are capable of picking up as far as RFI/EMI goes but maybe some equipment is out there that can do it...
IOW, even with no audio system in the room and a measurement system capable of measuring the presence of RFI/EMI, could it detect the presence or absence of the Shakti effect.
That's what I'm wondering about really.
Clearly, or so I'd hope, someone somehow must have found out it's effect and assuming for a minute it does reduce listening fatigue (which is closely related to stress) I conclude from that it would also reduce stress in the room it is present in?
Somewhat similar to KYW's crystals analogy I suppose..but I could be wrong just the same.
Cheers,
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Thorsten,
I must hand it to you, you are able to read in my post far more than I put in (or maybe I put in more than I was aware, does that make me a psychic? Randi to the rescue!).
Seriously now. Assume you have a law, say about the motion of objects in space, planetary bodies, meteors, satellites, spaceships. Say that this law accurately explains all those motions as good as they can be measured and observed. Furthermore, it also fits other related laws on gravity, charge attraction, solar wind etc (It's an example, OK). That would give scientists a warm and fuzzy feeling that it is a pretty good law.
Now someone comes up with a spaceship with a revolutionary drive - let's call it the expansion drive, and he claims that his drive will allow his spaceship to operate outside of the law referred to above, therefore cutting the trip time to the Andromeda nebula by a factor of 10e6. Now I agree that I cannot think of a reason that it is impossible to build such a drive. But my point is that it will take a heck of a lot more than a simple declaration that the guy build it, to get it accepted, because it would upset a law that covers a large number of observations exactly. Suppose that it is possible, and the law needs amendmend, it very likely is a small amendment because you don't want to lose the coverage of the established observations. So you end up with two issues: extraordinary strong proof (which in this case can be just to fly to Andromeda and get back before lunch) and a tricky amendmend of a pretty good existing law.
Maybe that is why it doesn't happen that often.
Now, Thorsten, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just clarifying my opinion which you seem to have misunderstood. From what I read, it is an opinion that is widely held by many working in science. I accept that your opinion can be different. As such you are perfectly allowed to call it a religion, as I have the feeling that you would be willing to call a 'religion' anything two or more people agree on.
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa,
I think the problem is that you have not thought through what you where writing and considerend the actual implications of what you where writing.
Uh Boy, what happens if I break the "Law"? Do I need to hire serengetiplains to defend or do I get hauled off to jail without trial?
Let's face, the socalled "natural laws" are only the peak points of the gaussian bell curve of the probability wave underlying everything in this universe. As you should know, Laplace was wrong, utterly so. So in fact, i would not just expect to see deviations from what the "Law" predicts that are within experimental error, I occasionally (very rarely though) expect a really big deviation, which of course is not repeateable, but an indication of the limits of our "laws"....
Of course, things become really interesting if we deliberatly alter the underlying probability wave. The results appear to the narrowminded as "magik" and seem to "violate natural law".
It means then our observations and measurements are the limiting factor of what we percieve and are in no direct relation to absolute reality, as long as it happens below the measurement limit.
You mean it's a pretty good rule of the thumb, which is usually sufficient for government and NASA work but is actually telling us very little about absolute reality.
And who are we to say that the collective believe in the "law" does not alter the local probability waveform to conincide closely with that which is believed in?
Hmmm. Sounds like Doc E.E. Smith inertialess drive.
Nothing is impossible.
Yup. Now let's say that said spaceship drive is build and that it actually works. Now the spaceship driver goes to Andromeda and comes back. He simply says "I build the ship, went there and got back. Here some snaps on my cheap Digicam build into the phone, sorry, ship is out of fuel now and I need a major factory to make more and so you need to give me a lot of money."
The problem is that what is being claimed falls outside that which that muddy bog of sullen inertia that dares to call itself science can observe, the "proofs" are perfectly reasonable to a sane person as ordinary proof, but to the socalled scientist who is really the fanatical defender of orthodoxy the whole thing is of course impossible, hence the gentleman MUST be a Charlatan and his proof MUST be faked. The "scientist" will now set out to proof that this is indeed so.
A scenario like this (with many variations on the topic) is found often in SF Literature and also in reality, where in effect "science" blocks the aquisition of additional knowledge by refusing to take anything serious until a proof is delivered that is usally outside the financial and logistical means of the people behind the attempts to gain that knowledge.
Hmmm. The reality is of course that there is no "Unified theory of everything". The universes complexity and randomness is by far beyound that. So we may have to accept that two completely seperate and contradictory sets of "natural laws" apply simultaniously, the ppliability being deliniated by a certain boundary.
Yes, there is an obvious "higher" natural law that enfolds both seeming contradictions and explains why we have below the point where A becomes Not-A one set of observable phenomenae and another above that point. However such a "higher law" may very well be outside anything we can EVER percieve, so perhaps the seeming contradiction must be retained indefinitly.
In engineering one is often in the position of accepting two seemingly contradictory sets of rules and utilise both in design, depending upon empirical experience. I find it remarkable that to many scientist the term "empiricists" is used as pejorative expression!
Or maybe because any evidence that runs counter to expectations is simply and unselectively considered "bunk". I find the failure and sullen, childish refusal of modern "science" to at least seriously research "fringe" phenomenae at least as disturbing as having a certified imbicille in the White House.
I remember times when the impossibility of a heavier than air flying mashine was held to be impossible by many working in science, the same applied to many other innovations. Often it took considerably longer to achieve the practical realisation of such innovations because of such widely held believes.
The problems is that neither believers, dis-believers nor socalled scientists like ambiguity and uncertainty and prefer a false certainty over a true uncertainty and will fight with claws and teeth to preserve the worldview into which they have invested so much of themselves against any and all evidence to the contrary (I term this moral affordability).
Thank you.
Not quiet. It becomes a religion when there is established an orthodox dogma that things are "just so" and more than ordinary prrof is demanded from anyone even venturing an opinion that contrdicts the orthodox dogma and where the adherents refuse to consider anything running counter to their dogma unless provided with what they consider extraordinary proof (and hence usually very difficult to attain).
In fact, ANY religion by my definition above is an abomination and heresy in the ultimate, as it in effect states that all knowable is known and no change to the dogma is allowable.
Sayonara
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. " Thomas Jefferson
It is worth considering the full context of this statement:
"and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me,"
janneman said:
I think the problem is that you have not thought through what you where writing and considerend the actual implications of what you where writing.
janneman said:
Uh Boy, what happens if I break the "Law"? Do I need to hire serengetiplains to defend or do I get hauled off to jail without trial?
Let's face, the socalled "natural laws" are only the peak points of the gaussian bell curve of the probability wave underlying everything in this universe. As you should know, Laplace was wrong, utterly so. So in fact, i would not just expect to see deviations from what the "Law" predicts that are within experimental error, I occasionally (very rarely though) expect a really big deviation, which of course is not repeateable, but an indication of the limits of our "laws"....
Of course, things become really interesting if we deliberatly alter the underlying probability wave. The results appear to the narrowminded as "magik" and seem to "violate natural law".
janneman said:
It means then our observations and measurements are the limiting factor of what we percieve and are in no direct relation to absolute reality, as long as it happens below the measurement limit.
janneman said:
You mean it's a pretty good rule of the thumb, which is usually sufficient for government and NASA work but is actually telling us very little about absolute reality.
And who are we to say that the collective believe in the "law" does not alter the local probability waveform to conincide closely with that which is believed in?
janneman said:
Hmmm. Sounds like Doc E.E. Smith inertialess drive.
janneman said:
Nothing is impossible.
janneman said:
Yup. Now let's say that said spaceship drive is build and that it actually works. Now the spaceship driver goes to Andromeda and comes back. He simply says "I build the ship, went there and got back. Here some snaps on my cheap Digicam build into the phone, sorry, ship is out of fuel now and I need a major factory to make more and so you need to give me a lot of money."
The problem is that what is being claimed falls outside that which that muddy bog of sullen inertia that dares to call itself science can observe, the "proofs" are perfectly reasonable to a sane person as ordinary proof, but to the socalled scientist who is really the fanatical defender of orthodoxy the whole thing is of course impossible, hence the gentleman MUST be a Charlatan and his proof MUST be faked. The "scientist" will now set out to proof that this is indeed so.
A scenario like this (with many variations on the topic) is found often in SF Literature and also in reality, where in effect "science" blocks the aquisition of additional knowledge by refusing to take anything serious until a proof is delivered that is usally outside the financial and logistical means of the people behind the attempts to gain that knowledge.
janneman said:
Hmmm. The reality is of course that there is no "Unified theory of everything". The universes complexity and randomness is by far beyound that. So we may have to accept that two completely seperate and contradictory sets of "natural laws" apply simultaniously, the ppliability being deliniated by a certain boundary.
Yes, there is an obvious "higher" natural law that enfolds both seeming contradictions and explains why we have below the point where A becomes Not-A one set of observable phenomenae and another above that point. However such a "higher law" may very well be outside anything we can EVER percieve, so perhaps the seeming contradiction must be retained indefinitly.
In engineering one is often in the position of accepting two seemingly contradictory sets of rules and utilise both in design, depending upon empirical experience. I find it remarkable that to many scientist the term "empiricists" is used as pejorative expression!
janneman said:
Or maybe because any evidence that runs counter to expectations is simply and unselectively considered "bunk". I find the failure and sullen, childish refusal of modern "science" to at least seriously research "fringe" phenomenae at least as disturbing as having a certified imbicille in the White House.
janneman said:
I remember times when the impossibility of a heavier than air flying mashine was held to be impossible by many working in science, the same applied to many other innovations. Often it took considerably longer to achieve the practical realisation of such innovations because of such widely held believes.
The problems is that neither believers, dis-believers nor socalled scientists like ambiguity and uncertainty and prefer a false certainty over a true uncertainty and will fight with claws and teeth to preserve the worldview into which they have invested so much of themselves against any and all evidence to the contrary (I term this moral affordability).
janneman said:
Thank you.
janneman said:
Not quiet. It becomes a religion when there is established an orthodox dogma that things are "just so" and more than ordinary prrof is demanded from anyone even venturing an opinion that contrdicts the orthodox dogma and where the adherents refuse to consider anything running counter to their dogma unless provided with what they consider extraordinary proof (and hence usually very difficult to attain).
In fact, ANY religion by my definition above is an abomination and heresy in the ultimate, as it in effect states that all knowable is known and no change to the dogma is allowable.
Sayonara
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. " Thomas Jefferson
It is worth considering the full context of this statement:
"and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me,"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.