I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[Jakob2]

@ John Curl,

well i´ve never published a paper myself, so if that´s required it takes me out of the game also.

But what puzzles me most is the total unwillingness to develop modified test designs to avoid repeating the same errors (or to put the old structures under test) and that contradicts every scientific routine and goal.

Wishes

[jcx]

Originally Posted by champ04

Poor examples at best as these are all occasions where intentional deception of a willing population was enacted.

so high end cables are sold without marketing?

"word of mouth" is in fact the most desirable method, the creation/encouagement which is worked at hardest by marketing people




and don't let Mr Curl snow you on the publications - just ask him for a complete bibliography - refereed articles won't require removing mittens to count

[champ04]

Marketing attracts attention to a previously unknown brand. People arent buying the products in any significant degree based solely on marketing.
I dont know a single person who baught something without trying it themselves first.
And no amount of marketing has ever predicted what exactly a person will hear in their system.

In other words, a company may intentionally try to deceive (and many of them DO). But the population must also be willing to buy the tripe. And I think the rule more than the exception is that they dont.

[rdf]

Originally Posted by jcx

is there really anyone who has experienced sleight of hand or stage magic in person - and can still claim they "trust their senses"

Sorry, I don't understand. You seem to be implying it's human impossible with practice and learning to ever 'see the trick', that sleight of hand forever remains outside the bounds of human perceptual capability. This is the same claim made for DBTs.
Given the extreme degree to which some here dismiss the senses it makes me wonder why they're replying to posts that may or may not exist, and what evidence of the senses they'ld consider proof. Down the solipsist hole...

[Jakob2]

@ champ04,

to dismiss the observations of thousands (or only one single person) isn´t part of the scientific methodology (obviously it is often done in the name of science, but that isn´t necessarily _real_ science ), but to accept these observations as a fact is a totally different thing.

Science is simply based on reliable routines to establish facts (if possible, or more philosophically based is trying to falsficates hypothesis by these routines) and therefore a basic set of requirements is mandatory.

But to just dismiss an observation is quite often just bad science.

Unfortunately a real dilemma exists, as we don´t know (exactly) what people percept if we don´t do controlled tests, but otoh we either don´t know if they percept in the _same_ way as before if we do controlled tests.

We have wrt to these questions to rely on humans as detectors and that is different than doing tests with just "things" .

Ideally _good_ (or so to speak _real_) science tries to find solutions for this dilemma but that first of all requires to deal with human imperfection under test conditions.

Wishes

[jcx]

most of us have a model of the world where we don't beileve (most) of our friends have quarters hidden in their ears - prompting us to "look for the trick" - just because some observations are in confilct doesn't mean giving up the model but rather devising tests that we hope will refine the model and reveal perceptual tricks

[rdf]

Straw man. After all the discussion none here understand that?

[event horizon]

Originally Posted by SY

and L. Ron Hubbard was selling the real history of space aliens.

rofl.gif Actually Scientology came about due to L. Ron Hubbard & Isaac Asimov having a bet about who could create a new religion

Looks like Mr Hubbard won the bet

I'd name the book i read this in if only i could remember it, however it was one of Asimovs.

[john curl]

So is religion.

[john curl]

I am sorry to say that I have only one participation in a peer reviewed paper, and only one patent (audio) in my name. However, I have participated in and given a number of papers to the AES, IEEE, 'HiFi News' 'Audio', and 'Audio Amateur'. Each of these 'papers' were heard or read by virtually every professor interested in audio on the planet. IF I really screwed up, they would come after me like a ton of bricks.
Why I mention making a paper, is its PREPARATION. You can't just sit around, nursing a beer with your friends and state your opinion.
You have to do some research, get some results, and then put them in a way that they can be published. Only the most foolish would do this lightly. Usually, it takes 100's of measurements, research of previous findings, and associate review of your work in progress, BEFORE put it out to the public. This is worth it, because you really become to understand your subject at hand, be it capacitors, circuit topologies, etc.
Of course, sometimes you get laughed at. I was teased (behind my back) as the guy over-interested in capacitors, for some years. And so it goes, but it is worth it.