Logic vs. emotion - Page 11 - 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 3rd May 2011, 01:12 AM   #101
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Unfortunately, that story was grossly misreported. Then again, it was a publicity stunt, not an actual scientific experiment, so no surprise. Jamie Goode, who is one of the smarter wine writers and researchers out there, did a devastating takedown of this story and the gullible reporters who mindlessly misrepresented it.
__________________
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
Old 3rd May 2011, 01:22 AM   #102
jkeny is offline jkeny  Ireland
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Unfortunately, that story was grossly misreported. Then again, it was a publicity stunt, not an actual scientific experiment, so no surprise. Jamie Goode, who is one of the smarter wine writers and researchers out there, did a devastating takedown of this story and the gullible reporters who mindlessly misrepresented it.
You mean this paper (which is linked to in the article) from AgEcon Search: Item 37328 "DO MORE EXPENSIVE WINES TASTE BETTER? EVIDENCE FROM A LARGE SAMPLE OF BLIND TASTINGS" was not a scientific experiment? It's conclusion was called into question?
Quote:
Individuals who are unaware of the price do not derive more enjoyment from more expensive wine. In a sample of more than 6,000 blind tastings, we find that the correlation between price and overall rating is small and negative, suggesting that individuals on average enjoy more expensive wines slightly less.

Last edited by jkeny; 3rd May 2011 at 01:26 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2011, 01:25 AM   #103
diyAudio Member
 
sofaspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Antonio
Do you see a pattern? From the beginning of the thread to the present, there is the tendency that rather than provide some reasonable evidence to support extraordinary claims, instead we get some rationale that is supposed to prove that something is wrong with the skeptics. Common as the rain, and nothing new.
Mr. Schooler (couldn't make that stuff up) seems to be saying that if we just give literally all "scientifically discovered effects"* a chance, the light bulb will shine above our collective thick heads. I'm not buying what he's selling. The Information Age is enough of a misnomer as it is. So, yes, I consider his "decline effect" a bunch of baloney. Has he ever wondered how and why Pasteur changed our world and Mesmer just added a word to the dictionary? One could call it an example of the decline effect.

*That's what he calls them in his first sentence. Then he goes on to say that since future tests uncover different results than originally found, there must be something wrong with "us". See first paragraph above.
__________________
It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from enquiry. - Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2011, 01:55 AM   #104
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post
You mean this paper (which is linked to in the article) from AgEcon Search: Item 37328 "DO MORE EXPENSIVE WINES TASTE BETTER? EVIDENCE FROM A LARGE SAMPLE OF BLIND TASTINGS" was not a scientific experiment? It's conclusion was called into question?
I've never read that paper so can't/wouldn't comment on it.
__________________
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
Old 3rd May 2011, 04:08 AM   #105
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofaspud View Post
Advice is always easier to give than take.
Tis better to give than receive, you know.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2011, 07:31 AM   #106
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
25mA please - you must be confusing me with that ancient DF92!!


Like other people, I was offering an opinion based on my experience, not writing a peer-reviewed sociology paper. But as you asked, here is a tiny piece of evidence: I am a scientist and I believe that I can be fooled even though I am aware that I can be fooled (my field is physics and electronics, not optical illusions or placebo effects etc.). You will have to search more widely and ask other scientists if you require more evidence.

Yes of course, you're quite right, wouldn't want to marr you with ancient technology, grey cells not what they used to be....
Henry
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2011, 11:18 AM   #107
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki
I can't go along with this. It is a condition tantamount to dissociative identity disorder. A failure to integrate. Look at the limitations Einstein's inability to accept that God might be a dice player imposed in him. If you want to be a scientist then you have to give up belief to the best of your ability, or have it ripped from you, or accept that the heights and depths of insight will be denied you. Darwin's insight destroyed his belief.
If you think scientists have given up on belief, then just try challenging something they believe. You will often find that they react in just the same way as anyone else would. A belief which is considered to be well-founded on evidence does not cease to be a belief. As a generalisation, the generation of scientists who adopted a belief will be aware of its weaknesses and limitations; later generations will be taught it as fact and so may believe it more fervently than the pioneers did. They may find it harder to relinquish, in the light of new evidence, because they have never known anything else. If a belief becomes foundational (e.g. Darwinism for biology, symmetry/conservation laws for physics) then it is very hard to shift. Once disagreeing with something becomes unthinkable or socially unacceptable, then to that extent it is no longer science but a form of religion.

Interestingly, physical scientists do try to test the limits of conservation laws and in some cases have found them to be partially broken (e.g. CP, neutrino colour oscillation). The analogous situation does not seem to occur to anything like the same extent in biology, although there are rumbles of discontent in some quarters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2011, 11:55 PM   #108
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Western Sydney
re:'If you think scientists have given up on belief, then just try challenging something they believe' - yeah, Dawkins & his ilk proselytise in a very fundamentalist manner, their mistake is to fail to understand the psychological aspects of religion, (not that these aspects need to be understood in a traditional way, many 'believers' fail to understand them too. The soft science of psychology has come a long way since Siggy Freud, still got a long way to go...)
__________________
Impedance varies with frequency, use impedance plots of your drivers and make crossover calculations using the actual impedance of the driver at the crossover frequency
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2011, 02:06 PM   #109
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
Interestingly, physical scientists do try to test the limits of conservation laws and in some cases have found them to be partially broken (e.g. CP, neutrino colour oscillation). The analogous situation does not seem to occur to anything like the same extent in biology, although there are rumbles of discontent in some quarters.
Disagree. Biologists, just like physical scientists, are quite interested in foundational shifts- but it takes evidence. The field is replete with all sorts of shifts when experimental results force such shifts (some aspects of my current research would fit that description). Overturning evolution via natural selection, as an example near and dear to your heart, will take as much solid evidence as it would take to overturn (say) the Second Law of Thermodynamics, since it is similarly well-established and is similarly completely consistent with the data gathered to date. And if I want to overturn the fundamental rules of toxicology ("the dose makes the poison") as I am currently trying to do, I have to have some VERY solid evidence. If I can get it, excellent. if I can't, well, it was a nice idea I had, just incorrect. That's the nature of science.

edit: Some other examples: the role of so-called junk DNA in organism development and phenotypical consequences of mutation in these sequences. The expectation of human gene complexity before the advent of sequencing ("Well, that wasn't what we were expecting or had predicted..."). The totally unsuspected feedback mechanisms in the previously-canonical DNA -> RNA -> protein foundational understanding. The non-heritable gene sequence changes. Many more that, when a real biologist explained them to me, made my head hurt.
__________________
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
Old 4th May 2011, 02:55 PM   #110
diyAudio Member
 
sofaspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Antonio
Yes! That's the nature of science. I would have preferred an added "...verifiable, repeatable experimental results force shifts..." Scientists often (if not most often) attempt to discover something is wrong (as you're doing) rather than prove something is right.
__________________
It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from enquiry. - Thomas Paine
  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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Music with lots of "emotion" Fast1one Music 57 18th April 2010 06:10 PM
Art Emotion Drive Units? calvert73 Multi-Way 2 22nd October 2009 02:22 PM
74AC logic V.S. 74HC logic ? fastcat95 Digital Source 0 16th December 2006 03:03 PM
logic ? luurmees Parts 2 9th May 2003 08:05 PM
Those full strings, with Disney like emotion! What can u recommend? wazzup Music 2 28th January 2003 10:09 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:29 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