A taboo word when discussing the ear/brain hearing process. Despite all the evidence and scientific acceptance.
Perhaps that is why the existence of the Tooth Fairy must be given equal consideration, to remain somewhere in the middle, open minded, etc.
Because psychology can't explain that one either 😉
cheers,
AJ
yeah...it's starting to become a recurring theme, but beginning to think it is simply ad hoc for whatever particular circumstance being addressed at the time.
Nice to see the sylvia brown defence appear.
'there was a disbeliever in the room'.
That explains why no one has passed a test administered by a disbeliever, and why they always hear something when done with believers.
BUT, if TG (as he states) can hear something when he expected NOT to, poof goes the sylvia brown defence no? The presence of a mere disbeliever could surely not influence so strong a disposition.
More unintentional hilarity. 'Psychology' between inanimate objects and subject is waved around like the ultimate magic talisman but absolutely denied between tester and subject, or real people. There's a lot of 'psychology' in that, no question.
You would have to ask. I don't believe in Tooth Fairies.
I haven't.
Dang, I'm a "see nothing" also
1,2,3....
I kinda like Dr Shanefield's "Witch Effect" myself.🙂
Didn't Yuri say something similar too..?
No, there is no magic, just the well known psychology of human perceptions, that cause people to "hear" wires, which then triggers wild goose chases, yes, some blind.
Where? Where? Negative waves Moriarty.
I thought this was well understood, hence the need for Double (Triple?) blind?
Maybe Quadruple blind would block these negative waves? A test where nobody knows anything?
Yes, he often commented that the presence of competent conjurers in the room inhibited his psychokinetic powers.
Not coherently. The only reason you don't see the obvious logical fallacy is the same one I've raised since this thread began, the belief of some that an avowal to scientific principles is some magic shield that absolves one from having to maintain them. Learn a lesson from SY's reply, he confirms a detail but goes no further, presumably from an instinctual respect for the laws of logical discourse.
whatever.
if I had the slightest idea of what you are saying, I may even agree with you!
who the heck ******* knows, quite frankly not interested in the time investment required for the translation.
In the meantime, just mucking about. Seems you are the only one who managed to get *the alternative* interpretation from that audiophile link before. The sylvia brown defence.
Just shows me not much worth in investing the time to decipher.
More to the point.
Have we lost TG? I'd rather we cut to the chase. No longer interested in all the pre-emptive excuses for failure. Will admit it makes a change, usually we see it after the failure, now we see it before.
Different order, same result.
Yawn.
if I had the slightest idea of what you are saying, I may even agree with you!
who the heck ******* knows, quite frankly not interested in the time investment required for the translation.
In the meantime, just mucking about. Seems you are the only one who managed to get *the alternative* interpretation from that audiophile link before. The sylvia brown defence.
Just shows me not much worth in investing the time to decipher.
More to the point.
Have we lost TG? I'd rather we cut to the chase. No longer interested in all the pre-emptive excuses for failure. Will admit it makes a change, usually we see it after the failure, now we see it before.
Different order, same result.
Yawn.
It's great to have someone like you RDF, avowed to scientific principles. Bravo.
Scientific principles like actual evidence of a phenomenon (such as magic shields) imparting audible effects on cables, unknown to science, that can be "heard" only by believers.
Your evidence?
I hope not (just like I hope we didn't lose dbe either, his buh-bye post from last night seemed to have disappeared like witches at dawn).
Tom seems sincere...and if he can indeed hear differences in his setup, I would certainly be fascinated to find out why, since I am a "believer" that something has to change sound waves within a sound field, for differences to be heard (as opposed to say "cheap" waves). So yes, if I were to attend, I would be accompanied by measurement equipment (with the hope that myself and/or the equipment does not generate enough negative waves as to disrupt the event) to see if I could find it.
cheers,
AJ
One defends against an accusation of employing a classical logical fallacy with another, a second dismisses without apparent comprehension that in science logic precedes evidence, and the third hi-fives an impossible psychological cold read. Sweet.
You weren't one of the three. 🙂 You're one of the very few in my view who instinctively understands science as a living process generating results and not a static book of knowledge. No matter how long and hard anyone defends the written word, abandoning the process disbars them from the club.
Sorry, I was unclear about what I disagreed with- logic does not necessarily precede evidence. Evidence is the raw material for useful logical deduction.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.