| millwood |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
"Contempt, without examination, is PREJUDICE" |
that applies to either acception and rejection of anything: taking wholesale a theory without diligence is as foolish as rejecting such a theory without diligence.
But I think the burden is more on the party trying to promote things out of the originary. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
You know folks! I was always told that: "Contempt, without examination, is PREJUDICE" I believe that not trying something, not attempting to make actual measurements, and showing contempt of anything outside ones own paradigm is effectively, prejudice. This is what is going on this, and some other threads on this and other websites. |
The contempt is all yours, John. Contempt for anyone who dares ask rational, logical questions.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by millwood
that applies to either acception and rejection of anything: taking wholesale a theory without diligence is as foolish as rejecting such a theory without diligence. |
Absolutely.
John wants it both ways. He will readily dismiss out of hand that which does not suit his particular paradigm, yet expects others to unquestioningly accept that which does. And those who don't unquestioningly accept his paradigm are painted as contemptuous.
Please tell me how this differs fundamentally from religious zealotry.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
Below is a list of items I think should be kept well in mind during the course of any discussion which has any pretense whatsoever of being technical in nature:
TOOLS FOR CRITICAL THINKING
Distinguish facts from inferences. Facts are observed and are not contingent on belief systems, biases, or preferences. Under ideal circumstances, facts can be verified. Treat skeptically “facts” that can’t be verified.
Encourage debate on the evidence by people who know the evidence.
Watch out for illogic. Be familiar enough with logical fallacies that you can recognize them when you encounter them. Even better, be familiar enough with them that you recognize them when you commit them.
Explore alternative explanations. The most obvious explanation is not always the best, and may often be wrong.
Beware of majority rule. Facts are not determined by majority vote.
Recognize that a hypothesis—even yours—is always a tentative explanation that ties facts together. Any fact that is inconsistent with the hypothesis destroys the hypothesis.
When possible, quantify hypotheses. The fuzzier the hypothesis, the easier it is to fit the facts into the hypotheses.
If an argument is based on a chain of logic, every link of the chain must be supported by facts, and every link must be logical.
Ask if the hypothesis can be falsified under any possible circumstances. If it cannot possibly be falsified, it is not a hypothesis that can be tested and is therefore within the realm of faith. Attempting to logically argue points of faith is self-contradictory.
Use Occam’s Razor, the principle that if two hypotheses explain the data equally well, it is better to choose the simpler hypothesis.
EXAMPLES OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
ad hominem – “to the man” – attacking the person instead of the argument
appeal to ignorance – the claim that what has not been proved false must be true
argument from adverse consequences – an argument based on predicted undesired outcomes
argument from authority – an argument based on the stature of the arguer or a supporter of the position
begging the question – basing a conclusion on a proposition that is as much in need of proof as the conclusion
cause - effect confusion – confusing the result with its cause
correlation - causation confusion – an argument that because two sets of data correlate, one causes the other
false analogy – ignoring significant differences in similar objects or events
false dichotomy – rejecting intermediate alternatives
hasty generalization – basing a conclusion on a sample that is too small
inconsistency – accepting contradictory propositions
non sequitur – “it does not follow” – an argument in which the conclusion does not follow the premise
observational selection – choosing only the data that fit the proposition
post hoc ergo propter hoc – “It happened after, so it was caused by.” Confuses sequence with causation
slippery slope – an argument that one thing will lead to another, and since the final outcome would be bad, the initial choice is bad
special pleading – the claim that special insight or understanding are needed or are impossible but would be required
straw man – an argument that oversimplifies or misstates an argument to make it easier to attack
weasel words – the use of ambiguous or imprecise language to support or counter an argument. Euphemisms and politically-correct speech may fit within this category.
se |
|
|
| millwood |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
appeal to ignorance – the claim that what has not been proved false must be true |
"so many high-end cables and famouse advocates out there, then it must be true that cables make an audible difference".
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
argument from authority – an argument based on the stature of the arguer or a supporter of the position |
"if my musician/dj/pro audio friends can hear the difference, it must be true".
"I have built X amps. How many have you built?"
"I have designed X amps'. How many have you done?"
"I have an EE major. What do you have?"
"I am an electric technician. who are you?"
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
begging the question – basing a conclusion on a proposition that is as much in need of proof as the conclusion |
"trust me. I have 35 years of experience setting up audio systems in nightclubs and bars, I know high-end when I hear it".
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
correlation - causation confusion – an argument that because two sets of data correlate, one causes the other |
"after I put in my egyptian maple case, i heard immediate improvement in sound quality -> the egyptian maple case sure helped.
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
false dichotomy – rejecting intermediate alternatives |
"when I say that mchanism dampening helps sound quality, it does".
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
hasty generalization – basing a conclusion on a sample that is too small |
"my friend's barber's mother heard it. so you must be able to hear it".
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
non sequitur – “it does not follow” – an argument in which the conclusion does not follow the premise |
too many to list, :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
observational selection – choosing only the data that fit the proposition |
"all of my friends can hear it. so it must be true for everyone".
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
special pleading – the claim that special insight or understanding are needed or are impossible but would be required |
"you aren't worth my time".
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
weasel words – the use of ambiguous or imprecise language to support or counter an argument. Euphemisms and politically-correct speech may fit within this category. [/B] |
"skin effect, crystal, semi-micro diode, quantum spins, neutrino shields, etc."
just some samples. I think you could find a lot more of such examples. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Millwood, SE, et al, please realise that the subject at hand here is that there are those amongst us who are observing audible differences in items such as audio cables, and we are attempting sensible discussion of the reasons.
Also please understand that parameters such as inductance, capacitance and DA etc do not fully explain the sonic differences evident in different systems when connected using different cables.
That we do not have full explanation for these sonic differences is not invite for the kind of childish derision that you two in particular keep rehashing.
It would be appreciated if you were to stick to sensible comment, and if you cannot do so then just keep out.
Eric. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | It would be appreciated if you were to stick to sensible comment, and if you cannot do so then just keep out. |
No, I welcome these comments.
I can't help but have a big grin on my face when I see that neo-nazistic (?) rules are dished out of what's considered acceptable and what's not.
Maybe someone should rewrite the forum rules as well??
But you're correct, let's keep it "ad rem"....The "quid pro quos" will come, eventually....
Might take them ten years but why should we care? Not our loss, is it?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| HDTVman |
You know gentlemen, the I don't want to side with anyone here. I have read this thread from begining to end and the most I can get out of it so far is a bunch of breast beating.
One guy makes some measurements on some very old, modified, not real great test equipment and has a fit when some one questions results that are beyond the capability of that test equipment. Bang Bang Bang
A other guy makes all kinds of statements about properties of conductors and when asked to explain responses with criptic statements and ridicule. Bang Bang Bang
Yet a third says He knows how to fix it all and then says, I can't tell ya because it's my secret. Bang Bang Bang
I think SE is abrasive and can be a pain at times, but that doesn't keep his basic questions here from being valid.
It's just my opinion but you breast beaters are just making your selves look real bad here. Ego will damage your reputation quicker than anything else.
Now if you were to take the time to explain some of your statements for the benifit of some of the rest of us rather than bicker back and forth that would be progress.
Later BZ:geezer: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | I think SE is abrasive and can be a pain at times, but that doesn't keep his basic questions here from being valid. |
While I don't doubt the validity of the questions I doubt the reason why they're asked and what purpose the answer is going to serve...
Call me a cautious individual...
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Millwood, SE, et al, please realise that the subject at hand here is that there are those amongst us who are observing audible differences in items such as audio cables, and we are attempting sensible discussion of the reasons.
Also please understand that parameters such as inductance, capacitance and DA etc do not fully explain the sonic differences evident in different systems when connected using different cables. |
Excuse me? Please realize and please understand that as yet, NO ONE has established actual audible differences. So how is a discussion regarding the reasons for something that has yet to be established "sensible"?
Let's see, what's that fall under?
begging the question – basing a conclusion on a proposition that is as much in need of proof as the conclusion
| quote: | | That we do not have full explanation for these sonic differences is not invite for the kind of childish derision that you two in particular keep rehashing. |
What's childish is yammering on about reasons for something which has yet to be established.
| quote: | | It would be appreciated if you were to stick to sensible comment, and if you cannot do so then just keep out. |
Excuse me, but if you go back to the first post in this thread you'll find that I'm the one who started it. I started it to discuss John's claims that he has measured distortion produced by cables. It is a TECHNICAL discussion. Not a share-your-amusing-anecdotes discussion.
It would be appreciated if you were to stick to TECHNICAL commentary, and if you cannot do so, then just keep out.
se |
|
|
| HDTVman |
And would you respond the same way Frank if I asked you to explain a statement? Just because someone else asks a question, doesn't mean that several other people, that don't want to get blasted, arn't thinking the same thing. Your additude is every bit as much of a pain and abrasive as anyone elses.
I think all of the major combatants here need to take a step back and consider that there are a lot of poeple that read these posts. It is very clear that most of the responses here are directed at individuals. If you were interested in the DIY community as a whole that would not be the case. You would be explaining things and trying to make you statements clear and understandable for all.
Now if you want to take a shot at me just know that I spent the last 25 years at Zenith Electronics Corp. as an engineer. I have been unemployed for the last 7 months due to elimination of the product line (HDTV Broadcast Products) so I have no vested interest in cables in any way, but I do know something about them.
Later BZ:geezer: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Excuse me, but if you go back to the first post in this thread you'll find that I'm the one who started it. |
So what?
| quote: | | I started it to discuss John's claims that he has measured distortion produced by cables. |
So? I conclude from that you don't trust John's measurents and from your replies no one elses' measurments either.
What's the point then? I wonder? Short of fooling yourself with your own tools I fail to see the point.
Or did you just start this to launch yet another attack on John Curl??
Mind you, ignorance can be bliss but I thought you were above that...
So, it's nothing more than a technical discussion between your ego and John Curls'?
Geeeez, do I ever regret waisting time on this egotripping thread...
Foreigners, you know....:D |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
While I don't doubt the validity of the questions I doubt the reason why they're asked and what purpose the answer is going to serve... |
The reason why they're asked is becuase of the emtiness of the claims that have been made. The purpose the answer is going to serve is to substantiate those as yet empty claims.
If you think I'm just trying to get a glimpse into van den Hul's deep dark trade secrets so I can use that information to produce my own line of cables you're nuttier than I've suspected.
It would be much cheaper, much easier, and a hell of a lot more entertaining to just buy some cheap $1.50 interconnects, some heatshrink with a logo, make up a bunch of techincal doubletalk marketing BS, stick 'em in a $20 wooden box and slap a $1,000 pricetag on it.
| quote: | | Call me a cautious individual... |
If you were a cautious individual, you wouldn't be making all these empty claims regarding van den Hul's trade secrets followed by a bunch of "hints" (which you say anyone can divine the answers to if they just think about it) in a PUBLIC message forum.
Seems you're less interested in being cautious than name-dropping and bragging.
se |
|
|
| SY |
| :cop: Guys, we're skirting close to the edge here. Let's either keep it to technical issues and not motivations and personalities or just give it a rest. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
So? I conclude from that you don't trust John's measurents and from your replies no one elses' measurments either. |
Who else's measurements are you speaking of? You mean the measurements you've alluded to made by the mysterious Dr. De Ceuninck which we have absolutely no information on and for whom you refuse to even provide a first name so that he might be contacted for details of these measurements?
se |
|
|
| HDTVman |
I'm sorry SY. I'll just set back and wait for some resonable, repeatable by others results and logical explainations.
Later BZ |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Now if you want to take a shot at me just know that I spent the last 25 years at Zenith Electronics Corp. as an engineer. I have been unemployed for the last 7 months due to elimination of the product line (HDTV Broadcast Products) so I have no vested interest in cables in any way, but I do know something about them. |
As much as I regret your current situation, there's little I can do about it.
The only positive suggestion I can make is share as much as you care to, maybe someone will notice and pick you up from the unemployment line?
Just don't take your anger out on me, please.
Cheers and all the best,;) |
|
|
| HDTVman |
Jumping to conclusions Frank? I am enjoying the time off.
later BZ |
|
|
| SY |
:cop:
I think this has run its course. I'm shutting it down; if anyone has a good reason for me not to, feel free to drop me an email. |
|
|
|
