How Science Got Sound Wrong
Religion and science are only 2 complementary part of the human endeavor, what the great Philosopher Ernst Cassirer and Goethe student called " symbolic forms"...They are others, the most central one being language...Religion and science are unintelligible at the end without a deeper understanding of the language function... My best to all... |
Good post! I just read that some hours ago.... Thanks teo_audio Exactly paralleling my point about brain-body maps versus straight fourier analysis.... the link is here: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-12-visual-neurons-dont-scientists-thought.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-12-conscious-visual-perception.html |
Atdavid you are very intelligent, very knowledgeable in audio theory, and I will not be able to point to you something you cannot want to see or does not want to understand.... My limited knowledge even if I can read very well, cannot make the deaf ears and the blind see... I accept the verdict of ignorance applied to me because I am ignorant in audio engineering but I can read a text, and William Softky is not an ignorant goofy... All my rant is there for you, not to retract your objection, that is probably if not a good one, at least an interesting one, I dont know for sure, but my rant is there only to point to you the interesting view, the wider context, where the opinion of Softky comes from... But there is nothing more to say for me, you said it yourself...Shannon-Nyquist explain all that need to be explained in the neurology of the brain-body maps and mappings like in audio technology the rest is superfluous words of this Softky... After you had for sure reduce anything that had to be reduced to this only possibility by restricting the general problem that the thesis of Softky raises and declaring him ignorant, or at least in total error about a point in audio... I thank you for you patience with me and your politeness.... I appreciate it, particularly here...I am truly yours even if we are not in the same wagon for that read...My best to you... |
Atdavid you persist to reduce, to a simple translation in a simulation model, the hearing processings in the body-brain sensors (including more than just the 2 ears sensor) a process more complex, that implicate more synchronized continuous mappings than in one Shannon simulation channel... Then how can i say my point that is invisible to your fixation ? The successive operation of compression and decompression of a natural object,be it a sound or a nude woman, is possible with a great degree of accuracy, nobody discuss that,neither Softky nor me, but there is a price to pay? Guess what is the price? This is the central point around the Softky argument, and the precise amount of information available via Fourier analysis in a Shannon channel, be it the information amount you point at, or the different amount of information Softky point at, whatever amount of information there is available will not change the central fact pointed by Softky ’s article , that is to say, the price to pay... Here is some bits of info that will gives you the beginnings of the answer: «But variability in the digital world has a very different structure from the “noise” known to science. In one sense, digital variability is lower,having been specifically enriched to appear to our sensory systems as coherent 3D images or sounds rather than as random snow or hiss. In that sense, moment-to-moment digital inputs are designed to seem low noise and clean. But digital sources are hyperdimensional patterns, which (unlike real things) can change discontinuously, thereby violating the continuous natural laws a nervous system expects. The unnatural structure of digital variability can make it appear far more trustworthy and predictable than it actually is.» William Softky |
I think my lecture of the Softky article posted here is confirmed by the informations contained in this other one : https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1710/1710.08916.pdf |
In a word atdavid, 2-3 microseconds of real brain-body continuous time is not the same as the hypothetical 2-3 microseconds of sampling times in audio technology simulation, except if you reduce the synchronization of all the body-brain maps to one and only one simulation map, this time map implicated in the sampling process simulation of audio Technology... Even if Softky is wrong about the point you indicated, and that the extraction of information at the scale of 2-3 microsecond time is possible , in the sampling theoretical condition of audio technology; the main point of Softky about sound processing implicate first the real neurological microtime maps information of the body-brain sensors irreducible to digital audio tech. then to one digital time map... Perhaps I am wong and all perception is reducible to Fourier analysis in an audio channel ...I dont think so, Softky neither it seems about the neurological basis of hearing perception... My "one word" is finally many words... :) |
«Even the best CDs can only resolve time down to 23 microseconds, while our nervous systems need at least 10 times better resolution, in the neighborhood of two to three microseconds. In crass amplitude terms, that missing microtime resolution seems like “only” tiny percentage points. However, it carries a whopping 90% of the resolution information the nervous system cares about. We need that microtime to hear the presence and depth of sounds outside us and to sense others’ emotions inside us.» William SoftkyMy understanding of his point is that Softky say that even if a digitized system that is bandwidth limited has high temporal precision, the digitized system does not have enough precision, for example in the 2-3 microseconds limits... The body-brain sensors interact synchronistically in this 2-3 micro-seconds windows, and for Softky, digitized system lack this microtime synchronization between the lived 3-d real world where sound lives in synchronization with the body brain sensors...The digitized system does not incorporated all the information that is received by the body brain sensors, and the body-brain sensors are not reducible to the ears-brain system, reduced itself to the digital simulation of his capabilities...Processing sounds begins with the body movement not only the passive theoretical hypothetical actual ear-brain system. The microtime concept of Softky is neurophysical and is linked to that multi scale synchronization of the body-brain and not only to the sampling processes in digitized audio... This is my understanding, then your critic is, even if valid, miss his whole argument...And that argument of Softky is a valid problem of reseach whose goal is precisely to improve digitized system in their capabilities to emulate in the future this multi scale synchronization maps implicated in the hearing process, that is way more complicate that what say digitized system theory actually about sampling processes and their particular restricted concept of microtime ... I am in no way competent to discuss all that, less knowledgeable than most people here in digital audio, but my understanding of this article is contrary to your dismissing of it because of this precise point in digital information technology about the author’s alleged erroneously concept of micro time in sampling processes.... The concept of micro time of the writer is complex and has it roots in the body-brain synchronization sensors, and is not reducible to the concept of micro time inherent in sampling processes... In a word digital audio technology in general suppose that hearing is reducible to a concept of microtime not complex enough to incorporate the lived experience of the body brain sensors and not enough refine also... The sound events conveyed by the body-brain sensors, implicating 2-3 microseconds intervals, are events for the whole body-brain, and are not isomorph in a timelike manner to the simulation maps of the sound constructed in audio digital technology, because these timing maps of the brain-body and the body brain flows are not reducible to the simpler artificial time maps of digital audio tech that recreated sound in their limited microtime sampled environment ... I apologize for my atrocious use of English ….And if so, I apologize for my lack of understanding, my only excuse is i try to understand this article, and I cannot dismiss Softky reflexion on the sole basis of Atdavid criticism... My best to him and to all... |
It seems we understand each other at least, a little bit.... Let me be clearer, the writer is not attacking digital audio technology " per se" … At the end of his article his remarks are very clear about the direction that it will be necessary to take to improve digital technology....Then this writer is not a "goofy" lover of vinyl denying the value of digital audio like some in this thread suggest him to be... This writer is not attacking digital audio at all, he think about the necessary linkage between the digital audio imperatives, and like you just express it in your words the "sound getting to the ear" level...Then your reading of this article fixating on an technical point does not do justice to this man ... This guy credentials are linked to tech innovation but he was also a theorist in neuro physical sound perception... Listen to him : « The Coming Microtime Technologies I predict the emergence of three new technologies that could change the world by reconnecting people. 1) Devices that quantify sound the right way. It shouldn’t be hard to create a multi-function “tricorder.” It could measure someone’s sonic environment in all kinds of ways: decibels (min, max, median, average), frequency distribution, suddenness, repetition and any other signal parameters that matter to ears and brains. Better yet, when paired via a data channel with a matching tricorder on the other end of a phone line, it could track sensory metrics of the call itself, such as latency, latency jitter, hotspots and dead spots in pattern-space and (with stereo) 3D reconstruction resolution. This device would provide sensory-nutrition information, akin to the nutrition labels on foods, enabling healthy decisions. 2) Microtime recording and stereo. A video technology called an “event camera” already exists, which uses pulses much like the nervous system does. Audio pulse-tracking could underlie a whole new form of analog recording, tossing amplitude and keeping microtime instead. When that recording scheme is used for stereo, played back through well-placed speakers, listeners will experience the sharpest, fullest 3D sonic field possible short of real live sound. 3) Micropresence = microtime telepresence. Imagine marrying microtime stereo with remote-video “telepresence” for the best interpersonal connection possible over distances. One very good arrangement would be an augmented-reality system (connecting matched rooms) that superimposes your conversation partner’s face consistently and coherently atop your own visual space. Microtime visual cues like micro-expressions will be partly visible even on a 3D face scanned by normal video. When combined with microtime sound properly aligned with the speaker’s mouth and throat, you will experience the most coherent sensori-motor experience possible remotely. The sooner technology restores the microtime connections that humans need to thrive, the sooner we will thrive again, leaving loneliness behind for good » Now I must go for the day, I wish the best to you and to all.... |
With all my respect to you, and you are way more competent than me on subject linked to audio, the "timing aspect of digital audio" is only a part of the thesis of the author about the perception of sound by the sensitive dynamical body, the main point is the necessity for the brain-body to synchronize and harmonize all the dynamical aspects of the sensors that perceive and interpret the sound phenomenon, this is " the timing aspect" not only about digital audio but mainly about the different maps in the brain-body.... This micro-timing aspect of the brain-body maps is not reducible to the micro timing of digital audio, and because it is not reducible to that, the author object about some negative limitations in audio reproduction... And if i understand you, you object about the limitation of the author in the alleged erroneous way he states his thesis in the realm of digital audio processing...And even if i give to you that, if you are right about that, and i have no reason to think otherwise, the main thesis of the author is about microtiming aspect of the brain body maps not only micro-timing in digital audio "per se"....Then your criticism, even rightful, does not nullify the whole problem that is behind the author reflexion… It is all my point... I dont attack your critic at all, i am not competent for that, i only say that the main thesis of the writer exceed the point in discussion by you and the main thesis is not reducible to this point of yours and your argument about his understanding of digital processing does not nullify his interesting reflexion, at best it ask for more precision and explanation... ….In some last words of the author: « It turns out the so-called “emotional resonance” people enjoy together really is a kind of neuromechanical resonance, aided by acoustics and reduced by reproduction. » Sound perception in human is always a living event, never a simulation... There is not a little hearing audiophile in my brain, and a second little hearing audiophile in the first little brain audiophile, and a third hearing audiophile in the second brain little audiophile etc to the infinities with all their filters...Micro-timing is first microtiming of the brain-body sensors in the living experience, not micro-timing of digital signals in a simulation first and last... By the way i am not at all in the position of specialized competence and authority in these matters that will makes me able to read more in this article than there is. (thanks to you if you think that i can) ... I only state what the reading process gives to me : understanding which is there plainly to see...A tree is not the forest....This simply states my defense of this interesting writer and scientist... My best to you... |
I am afraid that the tree you see is the only point you want to see... Like someone who is stuck on the point he want to understand or can understand not any other... I already said that even if you are right, it is only a point among other important points in the main thesis of this author who argue that the processing of sound is not only about microtiming in digital technology only but linked to the dynamical body brain harmonization of the complex muti sensors in a living event... In his words:« Consuming separate, inconsistent sensory streams that create competing maps of space violates a brain’s design.» That illustrate the main point of his thesis that concern not only digital engineering mathematics but also the body dynamical rhythmic sensors processing...In a word when he speaks about sound he does not speaks about the ears " per se" but about the whole synchronization of ALL the body sensors in a lived situation and not only the brain’s neurons but the entire neuronal matrix in the gesturing body...By the way i am sure that he knows that neurons are not only firing on/ off... I will not argue further with you i am not competent to argue about microtiming and perception i only pretend that i know how to read that’s all and taking only some point in an article and not all the others is not my method of analytic reading ...My rant was only a reaction to the bashing of the entire article around a tech point that is only that, a point, in a way more complex thesis...My best to you... |
I stumble on to a description of the author of this article unknown to me on the net, and this author seems to me not a complete moron...I am happy that this description confirm my lecture impression... «William Softky is a biophysicist who was among the first neuroscientists to understand microtiming, and among the first technologists to build that understanding into algorithms. Thousands have cited his scientific work, his PhD in Theoretical Physics is from Caltech, his name is on 10 patents and two of the companies he inspired were acquired for $160 million total.» Perhaps after all it is necessary to read his article a second time before discrediting him about a minor point compared to his main thesis.... For me learning to read is precisely that, reading 2 times, the first time the tree always mask the forest, the second time we are ready to see the forest forgetting some obfuscating tree... Reading is even more painful to begin with and at the end than most people think …. :) |
Musical sounds for example are like words and numbers a tough nuts to crack if someone think that these are ready made nuts coming from a tree without seeing the growing dynamical potential which constitute them...Which comes first the egg or the hen? Sounds are not understood being only object external to a subject, no more than rainbows are understood being only an external object with a pot of gold at the end...These are phenomenon, this is a philosophical useful concept, not reducible to the concept of object... One of the greatest conductor and maestro of the last century, is a mathematician by formation, Ernest Ansermet, and he wrote a book of 1 thousand two hundred pages about musical sound perception...There is explained the irreducible depth of the perception-creation of musical sound that transcend the acoustical phenomenon because the body-consciousness is implicated....Good read... |
Some people see without eyes.... But the main point is not the ears potential technical resolutive power " per se" but how the sound is perceived and reconstructed by the sensing dynamical " brain-body", and how the" body-brain" react to the sound and help to his perception-construction... It is a dynamical process where the sound is not a passive object to be perceived but a living phenomenon to be interpretated and inserted in a recreation process, this is a continuous action- reaction between the brain-body-environment, a tripartite process better understood via semiotics... |
Perhaps you will understand with a drawing... The main thesis implicate that the reconstruction of sound experience is possible if you implicate the body not only the ears, and not only mathematical simulation of sound out of his acoustical ecosystem but the gesture of the body in the acoustical sphere of the ecosystem with his acoustical response... I forget how to draw here...:) Here some important extract of this article for you to read and for understanding his main thesis ( beside the alleged fact of his incompetence in digital engineering or not): « A more brain-centered, human-centered approach to sound recognizes that the main task of a brain is to manage the vibrations of a physical, three-dimensional body. Part of that task involves making sense of vibrations outside the body, both in recognizing what thing made a sound and, more especially, inferring where the sound came from. Here’s why: Imagine you’re alone and frightened in the woods, in the dark, with threats nearby. Suddenly, crack! A twig snaps close by. At that moment, which would matter more to you: where the sound came from or what type of wood the twig was made of? The best way to locate sounds is to use the whole body — ears, skull, skin, even guts — since the entire body contains vibration sensors. The brain’s main job is making sense of vibrations throughout the body, eyeballs to toes to eardrums, all consistent, all at once. One single vibratory image unified from skin and ears. Headphones and earbuds fracture that unified sensory experience. Normally, your skin still absorbs vibrations from the outside, consistent with what you see. But with headphones covering them, your ears process entirely different signals injected directly into the perceptual space inside the head. That new sound image bypasses skin and eyes, while still being superimposed in front of you in space, on top of real sound sources. That physical impossibility sounds interesting, but it is the deepest kind of hack a brain can suffer, short of drugs. Consuming separate, inconsistent sensory streams that create competing maps of space violates a brain’s design.» I repeat that one alleged or real inaccuracy does not annihilate this whole thesis because the reconstruction of the sound experience is not only a "timing" mathematical problem concerning the ears- brain system, it is a more complex problem implicating the body sensors in an environment that is active and absolutely never passive for the gesturing- hearing- sensing- body and this is the thesis of this interesting writer. And by the way this is not reducible to "Head Related Transfer Functions." necessary for constructing math simulation of some aspect of the hearing experience, because simply put in words for example, a balancing sensing body in an environment or a walking sensing body implicate the head but is not reducible to the head movement... The analog/digital technical problem is only an aspect of this problem and thesis and a technical error does not invalidate the main point...This writer merit more than bashing argument around " a technical error"... Ok now I am done and retreat in my abyss... I apologize for my rant but my excuse is i dont like injustice and I learn to read and this is one of my few skills... My best to you and to all... |
My point is precisely that this main technical inaccuracy dont kill the main thesis of the author...The main thesis is that a lived brain-body event is not reducible to actual reconstruction of the sound because we lived the experience not only with ears detached from the body but with all the body-brain immersed in the lived events...But the author does not repell the possibility of future better reconstruction,that is explained at the end of his article... If you reduce this main thesis to a superficial analog/ digital controversy you lost the point...Even if your technical inaccuracy is right, and you seems to me technically competent( I cannot judge it is my impression) and I think that there is a strong possibility that you are right, this is beside the main thesis of the author that cannot be a universal genius and knowing it all...But his main thesis is an open thinking problem about how we process the sound in a "lived" experience versus a reconstruction that is truncated reality at best... I apologize for insisting about what I understand of this article, for the technical aspects I am mid-point in history between Australopithecus and Shannon...Perhaps nearer Shannon tough... :) In one word you proved perhaps, probably a technical inaccuracy, but that does not invalidate the general thesis of this writer... The water is dirty, if you are right, and you probably are, but beware to care for the baby please.... |
It seems to me that the central point of the article posted initially is more about the processing of sound by the brain-body in a real phenomenological experience versus the reconstruction of sound in an artificial way trough different mediums, be it digital, or analog like, or a mixed of the 2, with headphones or speakers... But the redactor of the article seized the occasion where an artist(Neil Young) was criticizing the reduction of live musical event, to reconstructed one, be it analog or digital reconstruction, or a mix of the 2...For sure the preference of many for analog/ vinyl versus digital reconstruction has obscured the main point...Like in this thread for example where the main point was lost by crowds defending vinyl versus digital reconstruction or the reverse... And some engineer happily pointing to "errors" in digital reconstruction interpretation by the author, like somebody pointing a tree instead of the forest...Even if the criticism is right,( and I dont doubt at all that it is possibly right), that does not suppress the main point of this author, it is marginal...It is important to not throwing the baby with the bath waters ... If we want to understand this article we must really understand first that hearing in a real world event is not equals to a reconstructed perception at this actual moment in the history with the technology available to a normal customer now...The author of the article otherwise speak at the end of a possible revolution coming in technology more akin to the natural hearing-body experience....The main point of the article is precisely that: the hearing body real event versus an artificial reconstructed event, of limited extent quality like with headphones or less limited like with speakers,will be always artificial then adding some destructive effects if compared to a real life hearing-body experience...But the author think about a future incoming revolution in the reconstruction of sound that will best mirror the real hearing-body lived experience...Then the author is not against technology "per se", but his goal was pointing to some limitations and difference...It seems to me interesting point...My best to all... That was my 2 cents after reading this article and after reading this thread but I apologize in advance if someone can prove to me that my understanding of this article intent is totally wrong.... My goal in this post is expressing the idea that the starting point of the article, that is a controversy (Neil Young opinion), not only is an occasion and a pretext that is allowing to present his main point by the author in some manner but it is also a possibility to obscure this same point ( the debate/ discussion here illustrate that)… Main point : the difference between hearing-body lived experience and some technological reconstruction and their negative impact and limitations at this moment , be it analog or digital or a mixed of the two... |
I think sounds are like words not only some external social communicating tools... Animals communicate... Sounds and words are together programming technology of the highest order between the brain-body and the growing self... They program through the use of the body-brain the consciousness itself, unbeknownst to the "conscious ego" of the children or the adult who listen or speak the words or the music....It is for this reason that I distinguish ego or self and brain...If not we are in the muddy waters of ignorance, be it even enlighten by some ocean of technological information or not ... But words and sounds are like nuts that people perceived ready made by the tree like only an end result ( be it the brain-tree or the engineered system-tree) without seeing the potential complex growing of the seeds inside... |
I think that the point is not Digital versus Vinyl "per se"... It is only that "the hearing brain" has his own distinguishing criteria for being "happy" that does not exactly superpose themselves with the actual frontier that separate the complex and mixed analog/digital links line in audio engineering... In a word when somebody listen to music, his ego is listening, but his brain also, and they are not exactly the same entity or reducible to the samething… Just a 2 cent remark.... That explain why some brainless twit can enjoy trash sound from a trash source, digital or vinyl, but unbeknownst to him , his brain not so much... If we understand that perhaps we can go deeper in the analysis... If not, there is only a trivial but very "informed" superficial but very technical debate indeed, instead of the search for a truth bigger than our own opinions...My other 2 cents... My best to all... |
Objectivity is a collective construction through language that educate the individual spirit in the collective game name : culture... Subjectivity is the other side of the same coin: it is a collective construction through language also... The distinction between the interior and the exterior of the consciousness is also some creation that is relative and agreed upon collectively by some higher form of consciousness...Then reality cannot ultimately be an hallucination, because it is objectively agreed upon and the result of a collective participation in the phenomenon...An hallucination " per se" is purely specific to one consciousness disconnected from the collective participation for a moment... Quantum sciences does not teach that we are figment of some arbitrary imagination, but teach us that all phenomenon are ultimately linked to one another and with the consciousness...Then Q. science teach us that reality is a creative imagination yes, but in no way an arbitrary imagination with no depth, a non-sense...(My favorite interpretation of Q. M. is from Roger Penrose...And my favorite description of the genesis of consciousness in the physical world is also from Roger Penrose). Each part of cultural activity is an expression of this collective construction through language, be it science or religion or poetry... Language is way more profound instrument that people think … Language is a programming brain-body technology that linked all human consciousness … Language is used in communication by animals... But for humans, language is more than just external communication, it is a way to begins to be humanlike in the same matrix of constructed significations ...Studying linguistic the right way is very rewarding...On par with mathematics for illumination of the understanding... Poetry is like number theory, most people cannot fathom these level of depth of signification, they takes numbers and metaphors like already made nuts without knowing the growing kernel... I think I am a bit too serious :) Dont takes my words....investigate yourself... Now I must really apologize to many of you and shut my mouth.... |
A phenomenological experience (like hearing a sound or seeing a rainbow) cannot be reduced to measurements of any number, now and for eternity... Measurements help to design something, be it a theory or an apparatus, an invention and are necessary for that...I dont understand how measurements alone can explain anything at all...It takes some new concepts if we want to understand something, amd way more than new concepts, it takes the living phenomenological experience also... I dont say and will not say anything about vinyl or digital audio , for me they are always different, or better said, always existing in an embedding context in specific implementation and they are of different nature and complementary... Saying that, I cannot accept that by measuring something with some limited actual theory, we can deny not only this radical difference, but also the phenomenological experience that is lived by each one of us differently... It is evidence that digitalization is necessary and useful, and that vinyl and analog process are also necessary and of some different nature for their effects...I know that no one contest that also... But the frontier and limits that differentiate these 2 process in audio engineering is not perfectly always clear for all of us user and even designer...And it is the same thing for their effect in the human hearing brain... I apologize for my rant...I like perhaps too much speaking...:) |
artemus_5 OP471 posts12-02-2019 1:29pm@teo_audio Add to that the fact that we only have 4% of the universe from which to get answers and you have a real dilemma. I’m often amused at those who talk so confidently of their knowledge. The older I get the more questions arise...though I do remember a time when I was quite sure of my knowledge too.Very true, and I am very much like you in this consciousness process where I discover for myself the amount of ignorance where I am... But the good news is we are like all the others, and each one of us is in the same boat with all the others, nevermind the amount in knowledge in each of us....The Infinite is the law of the universe before his beginning and after it, like one human life is finite, the universe is finite....But the consciousness and the spiritual universe are infinite.... There is a science of the infinite that is very useful in mathematics...And when we look few minute in this science, or for many years of study, we discover why contemplation is possible and why reducing the infinite to finite is impossible, neither extend the finite to the infinite......I fear that I am off topic completely....I beg your apology ...My best to all... |
Sometimes doubting is only a misplaced, or disguised faith... And true doubting really implicate a dedication to truth that is incompatible with any prosaic discourse (except poetry ) be it a theological one or even with some science discourse... Question: how is it that some scientific discourse, for example darwinism, is kilometers away, parsecs away perhaps, from scientific thinking process ? I apologize for my rant, because it is perhaps all over my head... :) |
geoffkaitYou are right in the collective sense of an accepted scientific truth...But way more than Emoto, the French Nobel Winner has years of works that proves it and he succeed to legitimate the great Jacques Benveniste whose research first 20 years ago has proved also " the water memory"... This expression originates with Benveniste, whose reputation was destroyed in the process of proof...Montagner wanted to rehabilitate him by proving that he was right in the first place …"Nature" and John Maddox wanted to debunk his research ( implicating even James Randi) because their view of the world or science was contradicted by these waters memory and in the process kills the scientist reputation and life...A sad but revelatory story... It will be more difficult to kill Luc Montagner... |
If you gives this one to see, you will suffer the wrath of some...I know that you like to be provocative a little bit too much . :) I propose carefully instead this one, and a more official and genuine discovery by the Nobel prize winner Luc Montagner and not less amazing in the same direction of research about water : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8VyUsVOic0&t=2s |
In the war between Jacques Benveniste the immunologist that prove the"memory of water" and the science director of the science journal "Nature", where is the true scientist? In the war between an homeopath for example and some scientist pick by chance in a forum thread, where is the true scientist ? Beware, the ultimate result of this "quizz question" may change with time....Or what we call history... :) Myself I am absolutely not a scientist, and cannot choose between these one, but I know that science is an ethical conduct of the consciousness with the phenomena... Not a profession first, a power, a social class, or a work, not even a reputation nor a diploma , not even a study... First an ethical conduct and attitude of the consciousness toward phenomena, after that only all these qualities or categories … I apologize for my rant.... My best to all... |
