And you have attacked others who did so.
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
Excellent. Thank you for posting EXACTLY what I stated.
Now, read VERY CAREFULLY..I will highlight the very important parts of what I stated that you choose to ignore.
""Originally Posted by jneutron
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.""
Now, I accept the possibility that you do not speak english as a primary language and as a consequence, do not understand my meaning. Ask questions.
j
ps..Wavebourn..to you, I owe a profuse apology. I incorrectly attributed Thorsten's statement to you. You did NOT make a statement regarding scientists as arrogant..I am sorry for that mistake. Defending such is of course incorrect, but I erred in attribution. The balance of our discussion, I continue with pleasure. You CLEARLY do not understand the meaning of "seem" within the context of my statement and the subsequent statments of clarification.
Last edited:
Apology accepted.
But I am not interested in discussion of audiophiles and their beliefs. I am interested in learning of their language, in order to better understand what they mean, to satisfy their demands better. I mean audophiles that prefer sound reproduction as close to natural events as possible.
Good. Because I have not done so (discussed their beliefs).
I have discussed at length physics, EMC, and acoustic hearing perceptions to the end of natural reproduction (audio of course).
And how IC's, PC's, chassis layouts, are capable of altering systems in ways that may arise to the level of audibility, as well as pointing out many ways in which testing has been mis-applied.
As well as dispelling many myths.
As I had previously believed, we are closer in thought than the recent dialogue would seem to indicate.
j
But to constantly err on the side of conservatism, that is indeed bias, by any definition.
For example, to take a hypothesis and run with it, willy-nilly.... is not advised.
Too many layers of potential error, in the cumulative sense, can be encountered. This is a very real danger, and one of the core points in the idea and expression of conservatism in scientific protocol and rigor. There's more to it than that, but that will suffice for this post's intent.
My point here, is that conservatism can be an issue on it's own.
For if one does not step out of a paradigm, one will not know if the systems in use or enacted ---are a failure point or not.
For example, to take multiple 'far out' hypothesis, under one roof, form them into a shape......and run with them.
And those who try that..or similar alternative forms of methodology, do indeed end up finding things that easily exceed the common knowledge of mainstream science, and that they exceed the known parameters of mainstream science.
That, improperly handled, the inherent conservatism in 'accepted' methodologies in science... can be a serious handicap to discovery. That there is and are large areas of discovery that exist outside of scientific conservative methodology.
That these discoveries do not exist outside of logic and associated rigor, or ideas on reality, but they exist outside of the baseline psychology of mainstream science. and that mainstream science and associated methods are not reality, they are not existence itself, they are a set of rules created by a bunch of humans, for whatever that is worth.
And that, as an item goes (scientific methodology), is indeed a creation, a mindset, it is not a reality or function of reality. Nice try, but the brick wall and a time for a fundamental correction is inevitable, as stated, even by the rules of science itself. And that time has indeed come to pass.
However, science, being full of people with issues in their psychological makeup, like the rest of human society and culture, science does not see it's own pitfalls. Once again, even by the rules of logic and science, this was inevitable.
For example, to take a hypothesis and run with it, willy-nilly.... is not advised.
Too many layers of potential error, in the cumulative sense, can be encountered. This is a very real danger, and one of the core points in the idea and expression of conservatism in scientific protocol and rigor. There's more to it than that, but that will suffice for this post's intent.
My point here, is that conservatism can be an issue on it's own.
For if one does not step out of a paradigm, one will not know if the systems in use or enacted ---are a failure point or not.
For example, to take multiple 'far out' hypothesis, under one roof, form them into a shape......and run with them.
And those who try that..or similar alternative forms of methodology, do indeed end up finding things that easily exceed the common knowledge of mainstream science, and that they exceed the known parameters of mainstream science.
That, improperly handled, the inherent conservatism in 'accepted' methodologies in science... can be a serious handicap to discovery. That there is and are large areas of discovery that exist outside of scientific conservative methodology.
That these discoveries do not exist outside of logic and associated rigor, or ideas on reality, but they exist outside of the baseline psychology of mainstream science. and that mainstream science and associated methods are not reality, they are not existence itself, they are a set of rules created by a bunch of humans, for whatever that is worth.
And that, as an item goes (scientific methodology), is indeed a creation, a mindset, it is not a reality or function of reality. Nice try, but the brick wall and a time for a fundamental correction is inevitable, as stated, even by the rules of science itself. And that time has indeed come to pass.
However, science, being full of people with issues in their psychological makeup, like the rest of human society and culture, science does not see it's own pitfalls. Once again, even by the rules of logic and science, this was inevitable.
Last edited:
To which?
As far as I can recall, I've posted at length on this forum on all dat stuff. If you have any specific questions, ask away.
If you prefer PM, that's ok as well. I assume you're in the business. I've give freely what I know.
j
- Status
- Not open for further replies.