Some are, some aren't. Not everyone is busy making excuses about why no-one can see the dragon in their garage- several of us have done recent DBTs on data compression, phase distortion, sample rates, and bit depths (e.g., see Jan's recent post on bandwidth limiting). When we can hear something, great. When we can't, also great- data are data, and it helps to not have any particular financial or ego interests.
Which is fine. I've not asked you to do so.
The same generalisation, as about scientists, you were objecting against.
Not even close.
A good scientist NEVER states that he or she has a sufficient knowledge of all... to explain all. A good scientist knows that current understandings can and usually will, fall to a paradigm shift. A good scientist is never arrogant on present knowledge. Rather, they test the ability of current models to predict.
Audiophiles may or may not hear something, but believe they do. I do not worry about the inablility to demonstrate such in a scientific manner. I in fact, state that I do not consider the tests as having sufficient rigor.
Do not for a moment confuse what I have stated.
I've seen both audiophiles who honestly tried to find expalanions of what they hear so engineer can understand them, as well as scientists that denied everything that they can't explain using models they believe in.
You need to get out more. Meet some good scientists...
j
You need to get out more. Meet some good scientists...
Ok, how can you explain graphs obtained by Dean Raden using plain scientific statistics?
September 11 2001: Exploratory and Contextual Analyses | The Global Consciousness Project
It is only one example.
Warning: it is not OT here, it is very related.
Ok, how can you explain graphs obtained by Dean Raden using plain scientific statistics?
Without even looking at the link..{which I cannot.}
I always consider the distinction between causality and correlation. It is never wise to use Ice Cream Science as a way of life.....
To wit:
It is a known fact that Ice Cream is sold at the beach. It is also a known fact that shark attacks occur in the water near the beach. There is a distinct positive correlation between the selling of ice cream at the beach, and shark attacks.
Therefore, if one halts the selling of ice cream at the beach, shark attacks will cease.
j
the only "opposite" camp I see much evidence of in actual posts here is that some respect technology, scientific method, AND like to see subjective evidence filtered through blinding protocols, controls as well established in perceptual psychology to remove biases however socially constructed, fed by marketing, based in naive understandings of human perception or a belief that it only requires "honesty" or "mental strength" to overcome unconscious biases without blinding, controls, level matching...
the “strawman” view of “meter readers” that "know everything" in audio seems to be your and other “subjectivists” invention
the “strawman” view of “meter readers” that "know everything" in audio seems to be your and other “subjectivists” invention
The problem comes when one does not understand that all given individual packages of hearing capacity, wiring and cognitive development are equal.
And then, via logical extrapolation, one administered test cannot be transferred to another group or situation, regarding results.
The idea of expectation bias then rears it's head, as an idea and extrapolation, in application, and in it's formative aspects of reality.
When we get into the idea of expectation bias, we get into the quantum relational aspects of reality formation, and then we encounter a psychological barrier, again.
Thus, 'expectation bias', as a conditional, cannot be applied in a manner that gives it exemption from questioning it's validity or relevance to the given tests.
For example, a song plays on the sat dish, as I go to post this message:
Bootsy Collins/Axiom Funk - If 6 Was 9 - HQ - example of high dynamic range - YouTube
Scientific methodology is running straight up against the quantum aspects of reality formation, which puts a giant hole the size of a truck, being driven through such things as 'expectation bias', as such a thing might be applied in scientific methodology. Sir, your paradigm is broken.
To the point that 'what I mean' by my posting about this methodology being broken, and using the song and it's timing of playing on the sat dish.....is not understood. Godel's incompleteness theorem, as psychological structure and thus position in understanding. The meaning and application of 'expectation bias' has to be renegotiated regarding what it exactly means and is. The latest aspects of the understanding of reality has rendered the current use and application of expectation bias, nearly meaningless. At best, in severe error.
Realization becomes key and that is tied to thought formation, which is ruled by the hind-brain and emotions. This runs up against the mentioned wall of the physician's requirement to heal the self. To stretch the self, so the newer form of logic can be reached.
It is a question of understanding flowing from the emotional aspects of acceptance of potential involving new data, not one of science.
Logic dictates that the most critical error is going to be the last one found, or the last to be realized as existing.
So you lied when said that my generalisation was wrong. You indeed even won't consider reading what can't be explained using your belief system.
You mean this Dean Radin?
IMG_0001.jpg (image)
http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(07)00180-2/abstract
You left off the rest of it! (DB Paper) Are you hiding important new discoveries?
(Well at least good humor...)Then there was the local University that sponsored a conference on "Creation Science." I missed it, but did "scientists" attend? I have trouble believing these are of the same outlook that John (N) regards well.
Of course the University administration was surprised and embarrassed when they "found out" about the conference from the publicity afterwards.
Last edited:
No, probably not. Biologists generally spend as much time worrying about that as chemists do about phlogiston and earth/fire/air/water theories.
BTW, if the conference is the one I think it is, you have some of the facts wrong- the university didn't sponsor it, they just rented space. That was still quite embarrassing to them.
I expected SY that you will chime in to attack the messenger making fun of him, instead of considering his message.
So, John, if SY is scientist, he proved once more on his own example that you were wrong defending scientists.
So you're saying that this is not stuff published by Radin? I've been faked out?
The only way that I know how to 'prove' if I am on the right track is to have people that I do not know, to like it, and even admire the effort, especially when whatever I have made has not been marketed in any way, except to hope that people will try it.
The idea that there is, or was, advanced marketing behind the Vendetta Research SCP-2, for example, is nonsense. It was successful (for the most part) because I tried everything that I could think of, to make it as 'perfect' as possible. I still made mistakes, and these 'oversights' were reflected in the A,B,C, and D mods that came out, over the years as I came to realize their sonic importance.
The idea that there is, or was, advanced marketing behind the Vendetta Research SCP-2, for example, is nonsense. It was successful (for the most part) because I tried everything that I could think of, to make it as 'perfect' as possible. I still made mistakes, and these 'oversights' were reflected in the A,B,C, and D mods that came out, over the years as I came to realize their sonic importance.
Stating such certainly does not make it accurate. Re-read what has been stated please.
No, I stated that I cannot look at the link. I did not state that I refuse to as a result of my belief systems. Please do not make that error again.You indeed even won't consider reading what can't be explained using your belief system.
The fact that someone found correlation between two entities does not mean causation, nor does it even mean a link exists. That does not hinder some from creating fiction to account for the correlation found in a dataset.
Ice cream science is NOT science, contrary to the use of the word "science" in the description.
j
John, it has nothing to do with causations. It all is about correlation, nothing more, Just results of experiments that have no explanation. You reaction speaks against your statement about scientists: you are trying already to argue prior to reading conditions of the problem.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.