John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2249 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th April 2012, 04:10 PM   #22481
diyAudio Member
 
jneutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
Referring to the data that chalenges beliefs indeed may be perceived as an attack.
And you have attacked others who did so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
My point was to show you your own reactions to demonstrat that if somebody is scientist it does not mean that he/she is free from such reactions, and the fact that somebody is scientist can not be used as proof that he/she is right speakng about perception of sounds.
No, that is not what you did. You attacked ALL scientists and called them arrogant, you attacked me and called me a liar.

What you are now doing is backing up and trying to make others believe that which you think looks better. Luckily, this forum stops editing after 30 minutes, so the past cannot be re-written.

Had you first stated such, I would have been in complete agreement with you. But you did not..

Now, go back and re-read my posts. I have described significant issues I have with the test regimens being used to show audibility nulls, I believe audiophiles are at a significant disadvantage in this regard.

Now get over yourself... go back and re-read everything I've stated. For whatever agenda or reasons you may have, you have mis-categorized me as an anti-audiophile..

And I am not.

j
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 04:15 PM   #22482
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oakmont PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Did you know that I have solid evidence that people with longer arms score better on math tests? I am 100% serious here, I am not making that up.

I don't think the issue is with "arm" length here. Something shorter is being compared.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 04:17 PM   #22483
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Here you go John:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
As one of science, the first question scientific reasoning requires is: ""Prove your assertions under conditions which remove expectation bias"".

Audiophiles seem incapable of providing such under controlled testing regimens.

However, also as one of science, I have examined the testing methodology used to date and find it lacking rigor. Confounders which are not understood are simply ignored as a result. I therefore cannot consider lack of positive results as proof of no difference..

Do not mistake me. I do not consider everything as audible, just that the tests which indicate such may be flawed.

j
__________________
"Our youth [...] have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders, contradict their parents, [...] and tyrannize their teachers. -- Plato, 447-367 BCE
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 04:18 PM   #22484
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 95
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
No, that is not what you did. You attacked ALL scientists and called them arrogant, you attacked me and called me a liar.
Just as a point of order - if there's evidence of arrogance and a falsifiable definition of it extant, then it needn't be an attack to call a person (or group) arrogant - it can be merely a description.

Not confirming or contesting this particular case as I haven't read Wavebourn thoroughly enough to evaluate if these two criteria have been met.

Calling a person a liar I think cannot meet the falsifiability criterion so must be assumed to be an attack.
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 04:27 PM   #22485
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Calling a person a liar I think cannot meet the falsifiability criterion so must be assumed to be an attack.
Sometimes it is not necessary to call a person liar to make him believe that he was called a liar. Also it is not necessary to call all scientists "Arrogant" to make him believe that all scientists were called "Arogant". Enough to refer to data that challenges his belief, and to insist on examining of this data instead of attacking the messenger.
__________________
"Our youth [...] have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders, contradict their parents, [...] and tyrannize their teachers. -- Plato, 447-367 BCE
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 04:45 PM   #22486
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
.... and the fact that somebody is scientist can not be used as proof that he/she is right speakng about perception of sounds.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 209666_f520.jpg (90.5 KB, 149 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 05:05 PM   #22487
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Wavebourn, I agree with your argument, and JN uses 'exaggeration' of whatever statement you make to make it turn against you. He has done it to me for years. I just don't bother to 'debate' him, anymore.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 05:09 PM   #22488
KBK is offline KBK  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wilds Of Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Yes, I was aware of this. Backster is one of the people who have been hyping the use of polygraphy for decades. Too bad it doesn't actually work... See David Lykken, for example.

For your amusement:
The Straight Dope: Do plants have ESP?

And some guys local to you:
Annotated Mythbusters: Episode 61: Deadly Straw, Primary Perception
You got catch 22'd by an emergent point in physics research, regarding quantum aspects.

That consciousness (directed-intent) directly affects the local medium.

Therefore, expectation bias ended up in the trashcan, as does studies done on psychic phenomena, by people who have no belief or trust in it.

That studies done on psychic phenomena by people who believe and understand it, are successful, every time.

And that the exact same studies, conducted in the exact same way, by non believers, fail, every time.

That the given studies, checked for possibility of inaccuracy or issues of testing regimen and design, are found to be perfectly suited and of excellent scientific protocol, regarding potential for false results or anomalous results.

Ie, the studies are fine, the people in them are the issue.

That consciousness directly affects the local medium.

Thus, science is caught by the bias inherent in the mind conducting the given science.

That independence from the results, at the reality formation point itself...is impossible.

The thing that was inevitable, even by the rules of science itself, has happened. That science is brickwalled by itself. brickwalled....by the given people within it.

Last edited by KBK; 19th April 2012 at 05:26 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 05:19 PM   #22489
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBK View Post
That the given studies, checked for possibility of inaccuracy or issues of testing regimen and design, are found to be perfectly suited and of excellent scientific protocol, regarding potential for false results or anomalous results.
The problem is, no matter how many of respected scientists check that studies "for possibility of inaccuracy or issues of testing regimen and design", results of their studies are unknown to the majority. Either they loose cridibility as the result, or refuse to admit them to the general public, in order to save own good names and carreers.
__________________
"Our youth [...] have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders, contradict their parents, [...] and tyrannize their teachers. -- Plato, 447-367 BCE
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2012, 05:19 PM   #22490
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon7000 View Post
I don't think the issue is with "arm" length here. Something shorter is being compared.
That correlates as well, as it happens.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2