Much like in audio. To sell esoteric components involves much emotional language . Audio components can be "smooth , sweet , dry" , not quantified by ESR , tolerance , Cob/Ft.
This carries on to the engineers (diyaudio engineering.org) Vs. the audioKarma/DIYA (engineers and subjectivists) , the source of many heated debates. This "faith" (belief) in the intangible could be classified as a religion.... but it sells! $$$. I am "middle road" , if a component "sounds better", it must be more adept at doing it's job better according to the law of physics or enhancing the design in which it plays a role. If it is gold , or has a better review .... matters not.
OS
I'd like to see someone address the points raised by FrankWW. That is at the heart of the matter IMO. With no clear cut answer (scientific or otherwise), people (including scientists) tend to filter via their predispositions. There is nothing surprising or newsworthy about that. This could relate to the TT vs CD debate, to actually connect this to audio as was mentioned at the start of this thread.
And yes, I'm biased. I'll not make any claims or pretensions to be anything but. And I'll let you know that I'm most biased in favor of freedom and honesty. I value them highly.
So I beg your pardon, Eva. I'm unsure what you mean by "Children should be educated for accurate perception of reality" but it sounds like a tyrant's edict.
I considered mentioning it earlier, and will do so now. Perhaps the classic text on irrationality is Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, written by Charles Mackay in 1841. It could have been written last week.
And yes, I'm biased. I'll not make any claims or pretensions to be anything but. And I'll let you know that I'm most biased in favor of freedom and honesty. I value them highly.
So I beg your pardon, Eva. I'm unsure what you mean by "Children should be educated for accurate perception of reality" but it sounds like a tyrant's edict.
I considered mentioning it earlier, and will do so now. Perhaps the classic text on irrationality is Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, written by Charles Mackay in 1841. It could have been written last week.
I must have missed those, but most of my reading is in chemistry, epidemiology, and materials, where the science is pretty straightforward. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more of the sorts of things you mentioned in social science journals, but I'm one of those curmudgeonly types who don't believe that sociology (for example) is science.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/...fo:doi/10.1289/ehp.1003220&representation=PDF
And to evaluate why I cited it read some comments on it:
Study: Even “BPA-Free” Plastics Leach Endrocrine-Disrupting Chemicals - Ecocentric - TIME.com
It's the Rheo Thing: "Estrogen Activity in Plastics" Report Has Many Flaws
Producing Safer Plastics - US News and World Report
See, that's the cool thing about peer-reviewed scientific papers: they're either right or wrong. The peer-review process weeds out stuff which is obviously wrong or is not described in enough detail for replication. That doesn't mean that a paper in a top journal is necessarily right- it's likely to be, but that's no lock. If replication fails, the lab that gets different results goes through the same peer-review process to see if they did something wrong. Then that paper gets published. Eventually, the scientific community figures out which one is correct.
In the case of high-visibility work in active research areas, that happens pretty quickly.
In the case of high-visibility work in active research areas, that happens pretty quickly.
I don't see
Not in my experience of reading them. They have various claims based on observations - sometimes the observation (measurement) is flawed, sometimes the reasoning is broken. So they're a mixture of right and wrong in general - the better ones get more things right by weeding out more errors. That's what the peer review process is for - not to say a paper's 'right or wrong' but rather to point out oversights and mis-perceptions and help to improve the science.<edit> Bottom line - science is about what works (helps to explain, understand, predict) not what's 'right'.
Last edited:
You have a good point. Scientific papers in major journals are written with the idea that the reader will have a basic background and understanding of the specialty for which they are written, as well as a fundamental understanding of basic science and ability to comprehend written communication. It's unreasonable to expect that research papers be written so that even the slowest adults or those with reading difficulties can fully understand them.
Try again.
Whether it was intended or not, it was a good point. Be happy with that.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.