There is nothing wrong with questioning authority or even established principals, that does not mean they aren't correct, just that you are looking with open eyes. Research engineers and scientist have to do this often, JN has had to look at problems with new perspective to understand a fundamental underlying situation that is not answered by the classic explanations of what is happening. He doesn't have to throw out what is proven true in other instances or has validity in other situations but that does not always produce an answer to a new question. Seeing things without a jaundiced eye means you can see another way of looking at something, an insight that hasn't been seen before, not because nobody cares but because nobody recognized another solution or practical application. I don't think I have seen anybody on this forum say that we have all the answers to measuring audio equipment that matches our subjective opinions and I assume everybody does have some subjective opinions on what they hear. Objectivity frequently requires us to consider the subjective, they do go hand in hand, I don't see how you can have one without the other.
Could anyone establish without question that those like Einstein and Tesla did not use both of these thought processes to discover all the things they thought up by only following pee-existing science? Sometimes you have to break the rules to find new ones and then you find that they are only adding and not subtracting to what came before.
Could anyone establish without question that those like Einstein and Tesla did not use both of these thought processes to discover all the things they thought up by only following pee-existing science? Sometimes you have to break the rules to find new ones and then you find that they are only adding and not subtracting to what came before.
Not Feynman's behavior, but rather his belief that a scientific theory is either correct (i.e., makes correct predictions within its realm of applicability) or incorrect (fails the test of falsification, a concept that Feyerabend hated). Feyerabend felt the same way about nearly all modern (post ~1920) physicists.
Probably best to read the book. I think he's all wet, but in an interesting and intelligent way.
Probably best to read the book. I think he's all wet, but in an interesting and intelligent way.
Yes. A pre-requisite is that you understand the existing rules and are fully familiar with them. If you have no clue about the theory that's been developed to date, no way are you going to come up with something that advances the art, let alone break the rules in the process (which often has to be done to progress, of course).
Nelson, I'm not going to reply to you as SY has done that more than adequate, but may I reply with a Q: would you have been able to come up again and again with new ways to design and develop different amp concepts, if you didn't have an intimate understanding of all the fine details and views on what actually happens in circuitry?
The type of understanding that comes from real hard work for many years rather than off-handedly unloading casual mental diarrhea onto the keyboard?
(How's that for a try at literature, anyway
)jan
Last edited:
Results? Subjective as always in this case and future cases for Bybee
Everyone should just ignore his products, period.
Already have the 'review" all written up? Saves time having to type it out later.
Any chance you are going to test it using your new.......oh wait forget I asked.
Man months and all that.
You get your name on the power strip for one thing
and whatever money comes from the sales is my guess.Awww you're his only friend
making me tear up now.
> would you have been able to come up again and again with new ways to design and develop different amp concepts,
if you didn't have an intimate understanding of all the fine details and views on what actually happens in circuitry?
The second (understanding) part can be managed by many.
The first part is restricted to the gifted few.
One does not imply the other.
It is more of a tool, or prerequisite, if you like.
Patrick
if you didn't have an intimate understanding of all the fine details and views on what actually happens in circuitry?
The second (understanding) part can be managed by many.
The first part is restricted to the gifted few.
One does not imply the other.
It is more of a tool, or prerequisite, if you like.
Patrick
Loaded question Jan ....
John,
Can we get back to audio discussion, you had mentioned the Otala" amp, please continue, best to ignore the thorny ones, some seem to have a real heavy man crush ...
Must be your old spice ...........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA
Ya gotta get with it - if you think you've got the goods, you need this - BRUT | The Essential Australian Fragrance
Aussies don't drink Fosters.Me tinks you found PC Frank ..........
The 'no pooftahs' rule is correct.
Dan.
Didn't Feyerabend describe Richard Feynman (who had zero patience with philosophical navel-gazing but somehow managed to revolutionize modern physics) as an "uncivilized savage"?
Feyerabend, like some forum posters we know, and was not above the
occasional provocative assertion.
In that case, I think the assertion was that Galileo was right for the wrong
reasons and the Church was wrong for the right reasons.
Feyerabend, like some forum posters we know, and was not above the
occasional provocative assertion.
In that case, I think the assertion was that Galileo was right for the wrong
reasons and the Church was wrong for the right reasons.
While they wouldn't put it exactly like that. Historians and others (especially Artur (English: Arthur) Koestler) who have examined the original documents at the Vatican, are pretty much in agreement that the Church was correct in suppressing Galileo. Basically, he was caught using false data for his proof of the theory. The Pope (who incidently had worked with Galileo as a fellow scientist for nearly twenty years before becoming the Pope) knew he had used false data and warned him to correct it. When Galileao came back with another assortment of phoney "proofs", that was it and they shut him down. It would be several decades before real substantial proof would become available. IOW: His theory was correct, his "proof" wasn't.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Last edited:
I think you got that reversed. The church as 'objectivist' and Galileo as 'subjectivist'?
Interesting how your mind has no problem to reverse the obvious to support your belief
Jan
But of course - church was official, god given and therefore objective, God said so, while Gallileo was a madman for daring to dispute that.
I'm sure you have noticed how thrioughout history, those in power were "objective" and any opposition was "subjective".
Jan, power, ANY power, will switch theses as its first act, always. Might has a way of being right.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.