Hi Mikeks,
Who is anyone to EXPECT others to answer their questions ?
Your on-going interrogation is as if you are insinuating that Workhorse is incompetent (or a liar!), and it is not nice !!!!
Workhorse is as free as you are to make his own choice of amplifier reading, and the original thread topic is being lost and spoilt by diversion.
I have not had any problems with Workhorses reporting of his findings, and therefore I am at a loss to understand the relevence of your insistent questioning. Thus I wonder if you could please explain positively what it is, with reasons, that you have found to be incorrect with Workhorse's words, so that we might all be able to learn from YOUR experience.
'Hands-on' can show a better way to go without there actually being any need to prove anything to anyone, and the results can be indisputable whatever the *possible* questions, then or later !!!!
Cheers .......... Graham.
Who is anyone to EXPECT others to answer their questions ?
Your on-going interrogation is as if you are insinuating that Workhorse is incompetent (or a liar!), and it is not nice !!!!
Workhorse is as free as you are to make his own choice of amplifier reading, and the original thread topic is being lost and spoilt by diversion.
I have not had any problems with Workhorses reporting of his findings, and therefore I am at a loss to understand the relevence of your insistent questioning. Thus I wonder if you could please explain positively what it is, with reasons, that you have found to be incorrect with Workhorse's words, so that we might all be able to learn from YOUR experience.
'Hands-on' can show a better way to go without there actually being any need to prove anything to anyone, and the results can be indisputable whatever the *possible* questions, then or later !!!!
Cheers .......... Graham.
Graham Maynard said:
If workhorse is going to continually hit us over the head with his 'findings', surely one is entitled to know with precision how the Worthy's conclusions were obtained.....
The reason for this is elementary:
His 'findings' are at variance with established facts....and cannot, therefore, be taken at face value.....
Graham Maynard said:
Hi Graham,
With respect, this is manifest nonsense.....
Deductions derived from so-called 'hands-on' work are only of value if the conditions, method, and other relevant caveats by which experimental data thus obtained is availed....
Moreover, the 'hands-on' has got to be reproducible with cast-iron consistency...by any interested parties anywhere...anytime.....
This, Graham, is not speculation, but established scientific procedure....
Graham Maynard said:
Dear Graham ,
Thanks for the great support.......
We manufacture vertical Nmos pro amps....all other manufacture Bipolar or lateral Mosfet[with respect to other pro-amp manufacturers] amps which are far easier to design.....and this is an exception in its own way and a kind of proof in a unique way for our specific findings in real time situations......
best regards,
Kanwar
mikeks said:
I think some people like you dont like losing the game to others .......ok,mikeks you have more books than me ,....alright for you now.....
Graham Maynard said:
I'd like to add some philosophical comments here - and I promise to shut up afterwards
. Let's assume there's two possible reasons for a reader and/or poster to participate here.1) Entertainment
2) Learning
For entertainment, just about anything is useful as long as it's pleasant. But what about learning? Suppose that person A reports his findings and the person wanting to learn new things adopts your approach of accepting whatever they say at face value. Now suppose person B reports another set of findings that are in direct contradiction to the findings of person A. Two things that contradict each other cannot both be fact. So what has the person desiring to learn actually learned from such an exchange? I'd say they have learned nothing, because there are two pieces of information being presented as fact that contradict each other, with no resolution.
So whose responsibility is it to resolve any conflict? One thing to notice is there will inevitably be a one-to-many relationship between the person making an assertion and the people who could use it to advantage if it were true. Common sense dictates that it's the one, not the many, who should be responsible for backing up their claim of fact. Otherwise there would be massive duplication of effort and little progress. This is the real reason why science adopts the notion of the burden of proof - sheer practicality and common sense. And even if we're not explicitly engaging in science, the same concern of the burden of proof comes up, for the simple reason of preventing duplication of effort.
So why does this fail to occur in practice most of the time? For reasons of human nature, there's some people who have this need to be viewed as some kind of expert by making outrageous claims, then saying or implying that the burden of proof rests with those who disbelieve such claims to disprove them. But such people don't realize an essential point. To a large degree, we are only experts to the extent that we share information that is known to be factual. You help make me an expert by sharing factual information that I wasn't aware of before, and vice versa. Sharing conjecture and opinions can be fun, but it's not the same thing as learning. But worse than this, people adopting the reversed view of the burden of proof use it as a rhetorical tool in an attempt to suppress challenges to their own perception of themselves as "experts". They become, in effect, intellectual snake oil salesmen - "selling" (in a figurative sense) fraudulent ideas with the stipulation that it's someone else's job to prove them incorrect.
While I feel that a confrontational approach in such a situation does more harm than good, I completely understand Mike's frustration on this issue.
Sorry for the rant. We now return control of your TV set to you
.
Hi Mike,
I suspect that when the point someone is trying to make gets lost in the noise, that person will become very frustrated. I am certain many people give up on threads for this reason.
-Chris
I can't disagree. But if you aren't an engineer, what does that leave you with? When I spark a new thing up, I proceed carefully. Mostly because I have faith that if I just turn it on full power, it'll explode.
I suspect that when the point someone is trying to make gets lost in the noise, that person will become very frustrated. I am certain many people give up on threads for this reason.
-Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.