Grand.
Small tiny question : howcome remains of a Maya city in Mexico were just recently discovered ?
(attention attention : will the honorable JD come to the microphone stand, please )
Pano
Science has to be ruled by agnosticism (on the other hand, engineering shouldn't)
IMO, the strength of science –and for the case of your question- the validity of knowledge gained through science lies in the robustness of the methodology (observe phenomena, record and analyse data, formulate a theory, test theory, adjust, alter, retest, provide data for others to replicate, test, debate the theory).
I sense that the guys that banned you, weren't true to their selves when you started questioning their opinions.
George
You only really need the coast lines and a bit of crisscrossing for an accurate map, you don't have to travel every inch.
For a bunch of people who pride themselves on being rational it's quite remarkable how the 'objectivists' have to constantly twist the presented statements of others to suit their thinking - maybe it's the innate need for humans to see everyone as white hats, or black hats ... if you ain't with me, you're agin me ...
who is it again that keeps throwing up the "meter readers" using "only THD", "conventional measurements" as strawmen in their bashing the "opposite" camp?
supposes “audio engineers” apparently too dumb to have heard of EMI, never seen spectrum analyzers, never been in a EMC lab with their product?
supposes “audio engineers” apparently too dumb to have heard of EMI, never seen spectrum analyzers, never been in a EMC lab with their product?
Last edited:
Both sides have part of the story, and hopefully significant progress can be made when a few people come off their high pedestals in each corner, and talk, really talk in the middle ...
I thought the curvature we observe is mostly refraction, both terrestrial and astronomical (atmospheric boundary, different gasses or lack thereof etc). the refractive index change vs atmospheric pressure (thus altitude) causes the enhanced curvature. very little of what we see is directly witnessing the curvature.
We would be able to see the curvature, because obviously its there, but its influence, even at 30km up, is unlikely to be very perceptible. none of this speaks to a flat earth of course, just a misinterpretation of more extreme effects that reinforce our belief/knowledge that the earth is in fact spheroid.
we can of course calculate curvature experimentally, but thats different to being able to directly observe it with our eyes.
Last edited:
I've seen most of the world on telly and up is always at the top of the screen. Australians aren't upside down. Gravity makes it flat. When you get further away, gravity is less, so it looks curved.
That is one of the most common logical fallacies, almost up there with Ad Hominem and Straw Man.
Middle-ground fallacy - Conservapedia
http://persuasivediscourse.wikispaces.com/The+middle+Ground+Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Last edited:
So, is your position that there is no middle ground ...? I would say, as someone who sees the elements of value in both points of view, that there is definitely a valid territory inbetween, and a very fertile place it is too, IME ...
Errrrrrh, no, I didn't say that.
The Middle Ground Fallacy is not that there is no middle ground, but that the middle ground does not establish the correct (or right or most correct) argument; it points out that the middle ground is not necessarily the correct position. Then again, if you had read and absorbed the content of the links, you may not have posted as you did.
The error in your logic (and I should not have to go into this detail) is that the assumption of two positions occupying extremes of a position and the logical extension is that the middle ground is correct and, in some way, hallowed ground, is not only wrong but dangerous.
Many members understand this implicitly (Anatech and many others) and to actually have to put this into words is slightly embarrassing, in that it should need to be said. Nonetheless, it is said.
There can be merit in something in a point of view. The question arises as to the validity of a post when it, for example, contravenes the laws of physics, or all evidence points to a particular different explanation of a phenomenon, or where a poster may say they experience "X" when all measurements clearly show otherwise.
What I do know about my personal experience is that I know my senses are distorted by time, tiredness, expectation, people with me, the "local" (read; beverage and other) influences, whether the the news reflects another local political stuff-up and any other facors that will change what I think I may (objectively, ha ha) experience.
Many people should realise that they cannot trust their senses most of the time. As an example, I can put on a track or album and hate it, but next day or hour even, it is fantastic. I still can hear all of the nuances of the music itself, except on one day I love it but another, I cutr it off and put something on and love it; all the while, hearing all of the"details".
Last edited:
I'm actually seeing it the other way round. I've many times hoped for a reconciliation but the dichotomy seems to be a given, you can't fight it. and it's because there'll always be at least one person on each side of the fence doing the division.
I always check around the edges of the screen for residuals, and the back, you never know.
There is still a very strong tone in your response, implying that the 'subjectivists' have very little useful to add to the conversation - that whenever they claim to hear differences it is totally illusionary. That is, there is no middle ground of significance, because one corner has virtually no integrity ...
The gremlin in all this is measurement: subjectivists can't measure, or are not interested in measuring; objectivists are determined to substantiate through measurement.
Unfortunately, all indications are that the normal measurements are ill-suited, or insufficiently sensitive or sophisticated to pick the variations that matter. Until progress is made here it may be the case that the tensions remain -- and, it may not end there: the objectivists may then claim that, yes, there are differences but auditory masking renders those meaningless, of no significance. And another round of arguing and bickering ensues ...
If that's the case, why do you get an accurate measure of the circumference from that observation?
Exactly the opposite, if one is referring to things which are actually audible without peeking. Funny how that correlation works.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.