It may be proof of the existence of a common mental experience, but it doesn't prove exactly what stimuli might elicit the experience.
Legal proof and scientific proof are two very different things, and it turns out they need to be different.
Sure, maybe not you but on many audio forums, including this one, there's a core of people with a religious zeal about blind tests who continually question the listening impressions of others so I did find it ironic that you should say, unintentionally, it seems "people who need to be told how to come to decisions." about what they hear
Arguing is useless... I will be anyway assimilated by semantical arguments, circular logic, obscure cross referencing, scope creep, etc...
I’ve asked for an authoritative reference and was offered lip service. Let’s agree to disagree and happily live after. I still believe that positive controls not directly related to the hypothesis under test are a useless way to complicate and obscure the test results. Call me dense, I don’t mind.
Gotcha, there's a limited supply of free-thinkers the world over...just look at the state of it 😡
Not really, philosophers figured it all out all long time ago. There is deductive proof and inductive proof. Scientific proof is of the latter type. Only something like mathematical proof can be deductive and thus true with complete certainty.
My question was about your claimed participation of audio DBT. You are dodging my question. It's looking more and more like a false claim.
Obviously, if the levels are matched, which is a requirement.
Regardless of being "small", if the sound difference is there in sufficient quantity, it will be audible. Sound events when discussing audio DBT? It's such a marketing lingo use by high end audio electronics sellers.
What is the kind you are referring to?
So you are not talking about audio DBT. That's what I thought.
Is there a difference between facts and truths? Is it relevant to audio perception?
Proofs only count in math and booze. 😉
Inductive/deductive is too simplistic to capture the process of science.
Facts and truth are philosophy not science.
It's about amount and quality of evidence for and against a theory/hypothesis.
"If a huge majority of people from all over the planet say they feel the same way as the others from a medication .... That should be good enough."
The plural of anecdote isn't evidence. Science doesn't work that way.
Inductive/deductive is too simplistic to capture the process of science.
Facts and truth are philosophy not science.
It's about amount and quality of evidence for and against a theory/hypothesis.
"If a huge majority of people from all over the planet say they feel the same way as the others from a medication .... That should be good enough."
The plural of anecdote isn't evidence. Science doesn't work that way.
Last edited:
When someone tells you they have had a certain experience, that could be called a truth but is it a fact or is it both or neither?
That's not a reference, it's name dropping. Come up with exact quotes from an authoritative reference, examples of application with results, comparative studies. Anything else is lip service.
Let me guess, you are not interested in going into such level of details, talking through your hat is so much easier.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.