Ha, ha! Enter a word, e.g. "pie"syl·lo·gism/ˈsiləˌjizəm/noun- an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).
- deductive reasoning as distinct from induction."logic is rules or syllogism"
|
You keep using that word. I don’t think you know what it means. ~ Princess Bride |
Might we have a syllogism, please? You know, something like all Greeks are men....
🐈💩 |
They use the word "honor" as a tool but they themselves don't actually know the meaning of the word... Could you elaborate on that one? Not only how they manage to use something they do not know at all, but how they use it as a tool. Tool for what? Not to mention that your definition of "honor" would be helpful in this. |
"So far I haven’t used any language to offend anyone..." None except women in general, people who do not share your beliefs about cable burn-in, lawyers, a few potential engineers, Karl Marx, truth, anyone who can actually compose a few sentences that are listenable/readable...
|
|
But andy2 you have used language to offend unless in your universe no female lawyers exist. |
andy2, I see that you are bitter, but do not let it get the best of you. I am not sure what your definition of "technical people" would be, but you are making a very generalized statement about people you have never met nor you know anything about. You are on a slippery terrain with that and risk discrediting yourself and your technical explanations. There have been at least two posters over the last few days who clearly showed, without much arrogance, that they do handle technical terms and concepts quite well. The claim that "non-believers" are non-honorable is probably not worth honoring with further response. |
Arf, arf. 😁. Your syllogism, please.
oh, the homonym thing. Don’t ask, don’t tell. 🐈💩👀😘 |
So far I haven't used any language to offend anyone, but for some reason, certain non believers keep responding to my posts. Like they said, when you throw a rock over the fence, the dog that barks first probably the one that got hit. |
The problem is the non believers are non-technical people and non-honorable people. They use the word "honor" as a tool but they themselves don’t actually know the meaning of the word since it’s entirely foreign to them. Like a blind from berth will never knows the concept of color.
Huh? Gotta watch them homonyms. 🐈💩🐍🐈😱
Oh, you should watch those class-based generalizations. In logic and in law, such is regarded as arbitrary, capricious, irrational and illogical. |
Over time on this thread, so-called "non-believers" have been asking for explanations grounded in science and rational thinking.
The problem is the non believers are non-technical people and non-honorable people. They use the word "honor" as a tool but they themselves don't actually know the meaning of the word since it's entirely foreign to them. Like a blind from berth will never knows the concept of color. |
andy2, That is unfortunate. I have been lucky to have met different ones. Maybe it does help that I grew up with a few of them so I am biased.
You are basically implying that "non-believers" are not honorable people. It brings a conclusion that they are not honorable because they disagree with you or things you claim. Vatican is more open-minded than that. |
So the thread has been reduced to denegrating women as illogical frustrating creatures. Where would one find evidence to support this supposed "rational scientific" opinion? Do we have another court case here built on circumstantial evidence? I am sure we could find " vast numbers" of people we can call as expert witnesses. |
Andy, May we have your syllogism, please? |
Over time on this thread, so-called "non-believers" have been asking for explanations grounded in science and rational thinking. The other ones, "believers", have been annoyed by that and frequently resorted to "you have to believe" and "there is more science that you just do not understand" or similar answers. That would make both of those groups mentioned in one of the above posts actually one and that would be "non-believers". |
Now you are really confusing. What kind of mentality is that? I know a bunch of lawyers and they seem to be quite different in most of the things.
I always heard that lawyers are of a certain type, different from honorable people. That's all I heard until I actually had direct contacts with actual lawyers. I then realized people were right that lawyers are different people from honorable people. Like Jack Nicholson said so clearly: You can't handle the truth. |
geoffkait, Always fasten your seatbelt. It does help. |
andy2, Now you are really confusing. What kind of mentality is that? I know a bunch of lawyers and they seem to be quite different in most of the things. |
I was speaking figuratively. When I use the word "lawyer", I don't mean it literally but using the term "lawyer" as a metaphor of a certain mentality. |
I see glubson is sharp as a tack today. Better fasten your seatbelts. |
"The non believers are acting like lawyers, the rationals follow logic and science." From what I gathered in this thread, that would be the same group. Minus lawyers. I really have no idea how they came here. |
I was unaware huffing and puffing was an acceptable form of debate. Live and learn 🧠🍳
|
geoffkait and his self-reflection. |
Peaches and hamburgers!
A syllogism, please, as the accepted form of logical argument, rather than ad hominems.
🐈💩 |
I actually don’t think the so called non believers care one way or the other. They simply like to argue. It’s what non believers do. They like to get a reaction. It’s so obvious. When viewed as simply a whack-a-mole game, there really isn’t any harm in that. You can’t do anything about it, anyway. Relax and enjoy. 😛 |
Devil’s advocates, those who are posting as supposedly objective viewers who are inept can serve no purpose in these kinds of discussions. They are simply stirring the pot. We all know what that’s called. The unmentionable. Oh, no!
|
There seems to be a trend or commonality in this thread. The non believers are acting like lawyers, the rationals follow logic and science. |
Eloquence and logic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, eloquence is ability to present logical thinking in a better and, often, easier-to understand, way. I think you are confusing magicians, con artists, swindlers, hustlers, little neighborhood crooks, and a few more with the skill and gift that eloquence actually is. You seem to think that anything that is laid out nicely must be there to get you somehow. It is not always the case. It really is not. Just like the truth which can also be pretty.
How did lawyers' personality characteristics end up here? |
That's the problem with lawyers. They care more about confusing with subjectives than the truth. |
Fine, frame a syllogism that rationally supports your views, free from rancor or sophistry. We shall go from there. 🐈💩 |
Seems like the non believers care more about being eloquent than being logical. |
Again, I am in neither camp on this burn-in issue, so I can somewhat objectively tell you that both sides seem entrenched in the same way. Same pattern with different prefix. If you have a firm belief in existence of burn-in, arguing with someone who has a firm belief in its non-existence will lead you nowhere, except for frustration. The only ones you could try to explain your views to are those with no loyalty to either camp. However, you may need to accept their doubts and questions as legitimate, too. So far, most of the burn-in proponents answers to challenging questions have been "it is that way, you just do not get it, shame on you" kind. Who would go for that? |
A friend of mine once told me to never argue with a woman. They don't use logic and just going to frustrate you. I don't argue with woman a lot but I see similarity arguing with the non believers. |
Huh, those are some depressing views. And incorrect in many other people’s views. |
Yes, since the truth is never pretty or eloquent. |
Eloquent is not the enemy of truth at all. It is just nicer and more coherent way of expressing it. Think of it as "truth with a style" rather than "truth with whining". Whatever the truth about burn-in ends up being, it is, except for manufacturers, only of academic importance.
I am not sure where did Marx land from in all of this. He lived way before speakers and amplifiers, I think. |
For now, the opponents are a bit more eloquent in refuting it theoretically. Eloquent is the enemy of truth. That's why communism and marxism sound really good. |
On these 18 pages, and between both camps, you could not collect 100 sentences that would qualify as somewhat scientific. Most of the "scientific" attempts are good for shrugging shoulders and not much else. There are lots of testimonies, but they are on both sides. Nobody wins.
I follow this thread because I do not have an opinion if burn-in exists or not. However, some of the claims and theories presented are not making a strong case for it. For now, the opponents are a bit more eloquent in refuting it theoretically. |
I am a bit disappointed that the non-believers just absolutely refuse to acknowledge science or other people testimonies. That is in itself a dogma. |
They may not be outlandish. They may be just right in Neverland or any other fantasy land. For normal living people, they are a sad joke. Relax your room, you will feel better. So will your cable. Nervous rooms and traumatized cables are a big problem in Hi-Fi.
It is not all I got. I use your references so you can easily find it yourself, too. |
Those are not outlandish claims. Well, maybe to an inept person, but even then. Is that all you got? 😬
|
I have not seen these outlandish claims cable manufacturers make. What are you guys talking about? Can someone do me a solid and post some of them.
http://www.cardas.com/insights_break_in.php
"Cables, cats, pianos and rooms all need to relax in order to be at their best."
"A note of caution. Moving a cable will, to some degree, traumatize it."
I am not sure if it would be accepted as outlandish, but bizarre or silly it is.
Note: Above statements are from an article provided as a reference two days ago by........geoffkait. |
See the requirements for expert testimony from the Federal Rules of Evidence below. Can you imagine a thread here trying to define who is qualified to provide expert opinion on cables, fuses, and wire burn-in? That should be good for several months of worthless but entertaining back and forth.
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert WitnessesA witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
|
Well, little dudes, it depends on whether you are in federal or state court, and if state court, whether the forum applies Frye or Daubert. I opine this notion would not be admissible under either test, and a motion in limine granted.
Nothing more disgusting than the smell of Kat 💩 in the morning. |
No, My opinion on whether wire burns in would not be admissible, a scientist opinion who has tested and studied the phenomena and provide supporting evidence for his opinion would be. That would be admissible circumstantial evidence. |
The question was
"In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true?"
The answer is no it's not even circumstantial evidence. |
I’m pretty sure opinion is admissible in court. Some opinion is more “expert” than others, that’s all. That’s why, in the case of judges or lawyers’ opinions, they’re called legal opinions. Anyway, that’s my opinion. 😳
|
The opinion of a vast number of listeners , pro or con, doesn't rise to the level of circumstantial evidence. It seems to be on audio forums and popular TV shows but not in court. Opinions are not admisible as circumstantial evidence in court unless they are given by credtialed experts. This notion
"the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours"
is circumstantial evidence in court is wrong, it's opinion and would not be admissible. |
blueranger
I think the nonbelievers are overlooking the circumstantial evidence of the vast numbers of listeners that can tell a difference and the cable manufacturers that spend untold thousands of careful listening hours to perfect their products while listening to burn in.. In a court of law would this prove burn in is not a fallacy but true? Known science would be taken into consideration.
>>>>>I hate to judge too quickly but my sense is that naysayers aren’t really interested in evidence. Whoa! Did I just say that?! 😳
|
