How Science Got Sound Wrong
| Post removed |
atdavid"Yup, definitely OCD as well ..." I feel very sorry for you, you're hurt feelings, and whatever disorder you suffer from. You seem unable and/or unwilling to relate, communicate, and discuss with me without engaging in vile, ugly, demeaning personal attacks and my patience with you're dysfunction is now exhausted so I have alerted the moderators, dear sir. |
| Post removed |
clearthink, You might have not meant any harm with your "on the spectrum" comment but it surely came accross as poorly chosen and placed. Out of curiosity, and along the same topic, this is interesting... "I know for certain that some of them fall under this group"How do you know for certain? Did they declare themselves? Diagnosing "spectrum disorders" is quite tricky. |
clearthink: I feel very sorry for you, you're hurt feelings, and whatever disorder you suffer from. You seem unable and/or unwilling to relate, communicate, and discuss with me without engaging in vile, ugly, demeaning personal attacks and my patience with you're dysfunction is now exhausted so I have alerted the moderators, dear sir.Ditto |
Visual neurons don't work the way scientists thought, study finds I know, lets find some flatearthers who think that mathematical analogies mistaken as facts.... somehow represent how people hear. As they read something about human hearing and decided to force factualize that into the math they learned in some engineering application. As god knows, since science says there are no facts and all is theory, as thing change constantly..well.. it then makes perfect sense to create a whole wall of facts around the engineering math of sound reproduction and somehow conflate this into some dogma about how humans hear....and all must be that reality....and the rest is just human fallacy, right? As we know all the math and we know everything about human hearing, right? Just like we knew everything about human eyesight just yesterday, right? |
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 |
| Post removed |
“Facts are like cows. If you look them in the face long enough, they generally run away.”Hmmm....facts which are tied to the great wide world outside ( which last I checked we know precious little about )....or theories which at the very least have to be internally coherent, read refer to themselves....hence the latter is kinda sorta more , uhhh, real.... Tough call eh.....like its not what we know ( or think we know ) but how we know it ( and exactly how deep that knowing is )....that ontology epistemology thingee... And no, most definitely not an English major.... |
Yeah me history, that thing that Foucault somewhere in The Order of Things called the mother of science...it also could have been referred to as the queen mother of science....but its been a while. That being said he was an outlier....though his ideas are pretty good at dealing with cultural history, which is kinda complisticated, on several levels. In the field of philosophy this is not so, despite philosophy being the primary discipline in which he was educated, and with which he ultimately identified. This relative neglect is because Foucault’s conception of philosophy, in which the study of truth is inseparable from the study of history, is thoroughly at odds with the prevailing conception of what philosophy is. And.... Science is concerned with superficial visibles, not looking for anything deeper. The above from https://www.iep.utm.edu/foucault/ |
You are conflating processing with capture. The study showed that processing occurs differently from what was expected. That does not change the fact there are a given number of rods and cones. Similar for audio, no matter how neurons may process, it does not change the shape of our ears or the construction, or the hair cells and how that will place physical limitations on what can be heard. I am not sure what dogma you are referring to with previous posters. I have read cogent discussions of digital reproduction and hand waving in response. In Science, theories are very close to facts, they are just called theories due to the rigour to prove anything a "law" in a vast universe. teo_audio1,289 posts12-16-2019 1:42pm Visual neurons don’t work the way scientists thought, study finds |
andy2900 posts12-16-2019 7:07pmWe all know the fate of any thread when people actually argue about what is "science". As they always say, ... yeah good luck with that. I think I'll go watch my paint drying. I guess when people cannot form coherent arguments against a concept that does not coincide with their world-view, they have to attack the underlying basis of how that concept was derived. Sort of weird here, as it appears to be an attempt to use science in a very anti-science attack. |
Science doesn't say there are no facts and all is theories. There are plenty of facts, theory explains them. Let go of a ball from the top of a building it falls because of gravity that's a fact, a theory tells us why, the current working theory of gravitation is Einstein's general theory of relativity. |
I guess when people cannot form coherent arguments against a concept that does not coincide with their world-view, they have to attack the underlying basis of how that concept was derived. Sort of weird here, as it appears to be an attempt to use science in a very anti-science attack.Thanks to some of the posters in here, I realize that you can argue just about anything, some actually did it for pure pleasure and hubris and self indulgence. I though "science" was a done deal, but this thread shows otherwise. Now I have to think twice before drinking water because apparently science could be wrong and I have to think if water is good for my health. |
I though "science" was a done deal, but this thread shows otherwise. Now I have to think twice before drinking water because apparently science could be wrong and I have to think if water is good for my health Even though you thought otherwise, science has never been a done deal...in fact as a collective endeavor one of its strengths has always been an insatiable curiosity that forces it to move forward and morph into different forms...it is not as most people think a quasi-religion that has a credo chiseled into stone and absolutely inviolable. The who, the what, and the why always changes. And by the way drinking water, even the most pure water, has its problems... However, drinking too much water can also be dangerous. Overhydration can lead to water intoxication. This occurs when the amount of salt and other electrolytes in your body become too diluted. Hyponatremia is a condition in which sodium (salt) levels become dangerously low. Which btw has become a problem among endurance athletes ( there is even a TED talk dedicated to this problem )....who thought, like you, drinking water is , uhhh, just drinking water. |
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... |
Is that my cue? “Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics. Science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.” |
When talking about science, I always quote people who have: - No training in the sciences - No experience working in the sciences - No scientific accomplishments If you take an excerpt of one of his quotes, he does nail someone pretty accurately though ... ^^^^^^ "speak with little or no authority on the subject matter of which they are so passionate" |
Ethan, is that you? Here’s another quote you might enjoy. “During the 1980s I became involved in the research into the apparent anomalies on Mars, initially working with Richard Hoagland and later with the Society for Planetary Seti Research. I'm still on the fence about some of these Mars features, but to me the most interesting part of that experience was my encounter with the bizarre irrationality and bullying tactics of the debunker community, many of whom fancied themselves scientists but were happy to behave perfectly unscientifically when it came to controversial subject matter.” |
If you want to win an argument remotely related to science you may NOT want to quote someone: - With NO scientific training - With NO experience WORKING in the sciences - With NO scientific accomplishments. Furthermore, you MAY want to quote someone playing with a full deck. Nice catch? .... well you caught something all right, but I hope there is a cure for it.
As a child I had many precognitive dreams. These experiences taught me that our normal perception of reality wasn't the whole picture, and that things went on "behind the scenes" to which our normal senses, and our scientific instruments, seem to be blind. This instilled in me a healthy skepticism toward the limited picture of reality we've been fed by our culture.
|
I can see why several of you idolize this guy. He is two screws short of a hardware store, convinced that the little voices in his head are real, and that his delusions are the right one, and hence anyone who disagrees with him must be evil, have an agenda, is not using "real" science, etc. Sound like anyone(s) we know? Sound like the methods and attacks from any people that we know? Sure sounds familiar to me :-) |
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... |
Speaking of memory of water... are you sitting down? Ice crystals form in different ways depending on the message written on a piece of paper. https://youtu.be/tAvzsjcBtx8 |
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 |
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... |
I guess people believe what they want to believe. I don’t know that much about memory of water but it seems a little far-fetched to me. And I am the Grand Wazoo of far-fetched. Be that as it may if people wish to believe in the memory of water I hold no ill will. I might consider looking more closely at memory of water if it could somehow be used to improve the sound. What is it good for? I certainly don’t know. Even Nobelists can have their own little pet theories. It kind of comes with the territory. |
Hey . Did you hear about how science got music all wrong. https://www.fairobserver.com/more/science/neil-young-vinyl-lp-records-digital-audio-science-news-wil... When did science get involved in subjective matters? 😀😀😀😀😀 |
