That´s fine especially in this case where it seems that you completely missed the point.
I am guilty as charged of engaging before understanding what/who I am dealing with in this thread. In a sense, I am brand new here.
Now I understand better and will act accordingly.
Last edited:
Syn08, you're aware of this, right?
Not even wrong - Wikipedia
If not, it may help you understand what you're working up against.
I have to barge in and comment on that a bit...
Falsifiability theorem is probably the main use of Popper’s work within public circles driven by the desire to “debunk” certain disfavored areas labeling them pseudo-science or “junk science”. Popper's work in purely in domain of logic of falsifiability, not it's application. Even Popper in his work actually stresses that there is no unique way, no single method, which functions as the route to scientific theory. Did I mention that the theorem itself doesn't actually demarcates science from metaphsyical claims?
Falsification is not the be-all-and-end-all. Having said that, falsification it is a decent rule of thumb.
The phrase "not even wrong" is basically just sneering and cannot be used as substitution for an argument.
To put it in to the context, while Maxes musings on electromagnetism don't have to be accurate or useful, in order to prove him right or wrong it is prudent for one to use arguments.
Best regards.
Last edited:
Solution to which problem?
In that case, I would have seen a lot of suggestions from you on improving the performance of speakers and room acoustics. Where are they?
Thanks Chris, yes I do see the problem in 7.14. These things happen when you are too close to your work. I hope that Bob knows. I'm fairly sure that he does. Yes, it is in the choice of the 'dioded' transistor which seems to be the problem. I make similar mistakes, in fact I caught one that I made 45 years ago, just last month. '-)
Attachments
True that when I see a post like "T, this guy doesn't know his A's from his H's. I'm sure that you are not worried, but it does get boring.".
Arguments carry no weight with anyone who does not understand the argument due to lack of prior knowledge. People can use words to pose a question or make a statement; they need knowledge to understand the answer to the question or a reasoned rebuttal to the statement.bozoc said:
It is used as shorthand to indicate that the statement being made could only be made by someone who does not understand enough to formulate a plausible argument. "Wrong" means mistaken, perhaps a little confused, but perhaps a priori plausible. "Not even wrong" means very confused, insufficient background, completely implausible, even unreasonable. It may be used in situations where it is assumed an argument would not be understood.
In order to be understood and make progress you need to be smarter than others, but not too smart. Feynman was too smart for some other people. It is the same with exams: to do well in an exam you have to be about as smart as the examiner; if you are much thicker than him or much brighter than him then you will lose marks. Unfortunately this raises the possibility of someone much thicker than the examiner claiming that he failed the exam only because he was much smarter than the examiner.john curl said:
Yes, Evenharmonics, I too sneer sometimes, and I did, as politely as I could, in order to attempt to curtail your 'Sophomoric' behavior on this thread. It was taking time, and we have heard it all before.
I understand Feynman (better than his diagrams at the moment) and his position so many decades ago.
I understand Feynman (better than his diagrams at the moment) and his position so many decades ago.
I think you make a good argument, but one that has already been misused to conflate one person with well accredited intellectual luminaries.
Context is important: Dan's musings have been years in making and haven't progressed even with sincere efforts to clarify his position. Nor has he done anything experimentally to defend such assertions. It's the same with many of characters who populate this thread (among so many others), where we suffer yet another circular argument, like John Curl's juvenile trolling about cables and directionality. Even if he fully believes in his position, he has to know after the thirtieth time being rejected and the subsequent flurry of posts that nothing is being accomplished. At what point are we allowed to give up and forewarn others that they're wandering into wildly unproductive grounds?
At work I try hard to support the grad students in my research center. They (like I did/do) say a lot of nonsense as they hash through any number of complicated subjects. I don't dismiss them outright, but I also see them progress through the concepts to get past a point where they're "not even wrong".
Experimentally, falsifiability is an impossible goal, but we have built our foundations on getting close enough.
DPH, my comments about cable directionality, etc were directed at Ed Simon, not you. You may not know this, but Ed Simon has actually measured and heard directionality in cables. He published it years ago. Personally, I hate the potential problem of cable directionality, and I tend to avoid it if possible.
You see, what you might consider 'juvenile trolling' might just be sophisticated communication between equals instead.
You see, what you might consider 'juvenile trolling' might just be sophisticated communication between equals instead.
Last edited:
You delivered a pretty good example what SOP means.....
I know it is part of the postmodernistic playbook but i am always amazed that it can be so difficult to admit having erred like you had in this case. Missing the point happens to all of us from time to time.
Right. Like every other time you've brought it up, it sure seems like you're averse to the topic...
Yes, and while it's been a while since I read that report, I don't believe it's been validated and had a number of method issues that left me (among others) wondering what exactly was measured versus what was claimed to be measured. This is also why I read the methods and supplemental portions of academic papers before I read the discussion section.
You are welcome to try it yourself. The construction details were given of the test gizmo. It does seem that the gizmo is not actually measuring what the target idea was. It seems to be influenced by something else.
I have shown the tests to visitors and depending on the cable it does show directional issues in various amounts.
Definitely not explained by circuit theory of R,L,C&D.
(Bill it is battery powered!)
Snap! In addition, many devices with 2-conductor polarized AC cords have high resistances and/or capacitors from the hot conductor to chassis. Reversing them will definitely cause changes in system noise levels.
Cheers!
Howie
I think he totally lost the plot with his 'feedback goes around in circles' thing in Stereophile.
I have absolutely no problem in describing what I hear in subjective terms - and when I write up one of my DIY amps, the last part is always my subjective feeling about the thing. I will say 'It had wonderful sound stage' or 'nice tight bass', 'airy highs' etc because that's what I felt when I listened to it.
But, what I avoid at all costs is to say 'it had airy highs because the loop gain was low' for example or any other thing you want top put in there. How can I prove that without a DBT, when we know on those things short term aural memory is exceedingly fickle?
I design amps so they measure as well as I can make them. Then I listen to them and I may do a bit of tweaking at that stage - e.g. front end filter, moving wires around to get better noise (always ending up using a sound card because I cant hear anything when its that low) etc etc.
I find it intellectually dishonest to make claims that are basically anti-science, or that under any circumstances don't stand up to scrutiny and I'm afraid there's just too much of that - which BTW is why I like Stereophiles review regime:-
Listen
b.s about it
face the facts from JA
I don't want to come across as the guardian of scientific probity - there are much, much smarter people who can do that here. I remember 15 or 16 years ago coming back into this audio thing and being totally bewildered by all confusing things I was hearing and 90% of it was total nonsense - which is why Self and Cordell's books were important because they exposed the bs for what it was.
There's too much bs around today in every walk of life. Why tolerate it in a field that is absolutely science and engineering based?
End of rant
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.