The science of opinion ...

@teo_audio  Do we have any examples of reformed "dogmatic mindset negative proofing types" and their redemption stories? Likely not to help, given the 'type,' but may make for interesting reading....

How to Clone a Pseudo Skeptic 🤨 🤨 🤨 🤨

1. Assume a condescending air that suggests your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of the science community.

2. Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific.

3. Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.

4. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to exclaim, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!"

5. Insist that the subject device is easily explained by conventional science so there’s no mystery there.

6. Since John Q Public doesn’t appreciate the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to obscure the difference.

7. Use the tried-and-true skeptics expression, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” as much as possible.

@teo_audio Do we have any examples of reformed "dogmatic mindset negative proofing types" and their redemption stories? Likely not to help, given the ’type,’ but may make for interesting reading....

Erik was smart enough from the get go, IMO, but I’ve noticed recently that he has decided to go more public with his thoughts and ideas on how intellectualism, discovery work, and exploration works - re some of the threads he has started.

I sensed he had it in him to do so..and he does...

Thus I find it is more of a internal psychological perception and perceptual base issue than anything else.

eg, in congruent fashion of illustration of the base required re shifting one’s self... never sign off a letter with ’take care’, but sign off with ’take risks’.

These sort of perceptual base shifts can’t happen over night and take years years (even decades) to execute. Slow boil, slow burn. It is the nature of the mind. Most that make it to this nebulous ’there’ point, have had things in their lives that seeded that coming condition of mind. Eg, stress and extremes can be very useful, in some critical or fundamental ways, when in the right life at the right time.

Thanks, @teo_audio   I meant in the greater human historical universe...I'm guessing here, but there are likely to be some luminary examples and they may even have written about their transformations / shifts....

Then we get into the concepts behind the origins of science, which is philosophy, and that can garner some very nasty barbs from the overtly dogmatic.....

Oh, my, it’s getting deep in here! Where are my wadin’ boots?

Say what you will about Ethan, but I am quite certain of something, if someone is spending real money to set up the acoustics for a professional studio, they certainly aren't going to be hiring geoffkait, not thyname, and sorry teo_audio, but outside your sphere of influence, not you either.  I also don't see respected and successful books on audio with your names on it either.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with him on everything, not even everything in acoustics, but the average audiophile is going to learn far more about improving their sound from him, since most audiophiles, the vast majority, have acoustically deficient spaces ... and that applies to people with very expensive systems as well.  He also believes his expertise extends to all things audio, and I don't believe that is the case .... but like anyone on this thread is not guilty of that?


Sorry thyname, I don't believe for a moment that Ethan has numerous accounts that he posts under. That was a slander/libel created by one notorious vendor in the audiophile community, who used that to attempt to deflect his own dishonesty and inability to stand behind his claims. It it obvious from the posts, whether writing style or knowledge behind the posts, that they are not Ethan.


p.s. phys.org is a news aggregator of science oriented press releases. It is not where one does scientific research.

.... and for all this talk of "science", I wonder how many of you even took the time to read the article linked. I know at least one of you did not, which makes anything you write here just bluster.

Oh trust me on this.... I know from experience, at least on various FB groups, Ethan has several fake accounts. I reported one of them to FB, and it was deleted.

I have nothing against Ethan's acoustic panels. My "beef" is with him saying everything else is snake oil.

My acoustic treatments are via GIK. They were very helpful in helping me out with choices and placement.

p.s. phys.org is a news aggregator of science oriented press releases. It is not where one does scientific research.

That is not a quality deflection, IMO.

One finds the press release and one investigates.

That is how it works, if one has to deal with multiple fields. Not physorg specifically, but with science news aggregators. No one can read all the journals, there are too many of them and the fields intertwine too much to find it all in one area.

I hold this to be obvious, so your comment is strangely placed -to the logical and capable mind...

Physorg is a place where cross field feeding can be easily found, so it is a gold mine for translatable and transferable ideas and understandings that can illuminate in multiple connected fields.

Like Heinlein said, ’specialization is for insects’.

eg, speaker design crosses pretty well seven different branches of established engineering/physics. anyone can put a extant cheap radio speaker in a cardboard box ...

Or get into the complex build and physics of lets say...nanotechnology...or molecular bonding, and multiple branches of physics and science, a near unspeakable level of complexity..... all to build a cone, which will be dealing with complex forces in a complex motor in a complex environment.

Thus seven different branches of physics have to be mastered as a flowing intertwined set, to make the best that can be in the realm of loudspeakers. It requires, in olden terms, a ’renaissance man’, and in modern terms, an ’absolute unit’.

The question is, does the opinion and experience of the average of the bell curve in humans, does it possess the ability to tell the difference?

Yes, by simply listening and buying what they like.

But if one does the hard work, the involved work, and is called a charlatan (regardless of the perceived quality of the speaker [or amp, or cable, etc]) well...what then?

How to respond to an ignorance that does not possess the capacity to clear itself? There is no effective humane answer found for that one, as of yet -and likely never will be.

Yup, atdavid is Ethan Winer. No bout a doubt it. Even if he’s not he’s Ethan’s clone. 😳 😳

”Say what you will about Ethan” That’s gold, Jerry, gold! Please stop! My sides are splitting with laughter!

It’s OK to have an open mind. Just not so open that your brains fall out. It’s very messy and hard to clean up. Professional studios? As opposed to Amateur studios, one assumes. Hey, did you hear Phil Collins is making a new record? He’s back in the Stu-Stu-Studio! 🤗 I told ma I think my stand up is ready for the clubs. She said but don’t you have to be funny to be a comedian? 

phys.org is a popular science site. It collects and displays articles that are of "interest" to the general population. Little there is esoteric or of a fundamental nature unless it relates to things that are public conscious items. Even mentioning it was nothing but a call to authority (much like your rebuttal), but your attempt at justification of its values to a very specific industry and discipline was interesting.


As you talk a lot about science, you must have an AES membership?  I don't see you there. Do you subscribe to any of the several acoustics and pyschoacoustics journals?  Materials sciences?

I never used the word charlatan, but generally that word is assigned to someone who makes extraordinary claims, claims that they are unwilling to or can't back up in something approaching a controlled situation where the claims can be verified or disproved.

I started to read the article but I only got as far as this. Then I stopped reading. Was that wrong? 

“At the scale of a group, repeated local influences among group members may give rise to complex patterns of opinion dynamics such as consensus formation, polarization, or fragmentation [8]–[11]. For example, it has been shown that people sharing similar extreme opinions, such as racial prejudices, tend to strengthen their judgment and confidence after interacting with one another [12]. Similar mechanisms of opinion dynamics can take place in a variety of social contexts.”

atdavid
I never used the word charlatan, but generally that word is assigned to someone who makes extraordinary claims, claims that they are unwilling to or can’t back up in something approaching a controlled situation where the claims can be verified or disproved.

>>>>>There it is! Just as I predicted two hours ago! It’s always the others who don’t understand. It’s the others who make false claims. It’s the others who are delusional.

I used to think this thread was a drama. Now I realize it’s a comedy. 🤡

By the way, your definition of charlatan is bogus, Ethan dude.

Two hours ago, I predicted two decades ago that people like you would never be honest and would always try to twist words to suit their attempted argument.

I am not making claims (for the most part), though I may be refuting claims. The burden of proof has always been on the one making the claim, especially when it goes against a vast established body of ... well real evidence. This really is a hard concept. "Trust me" ... only gets you so far.

It is totally totally weird how easy it is to set up something approaching a controlled situation for proving claims (and increasing sales) in audio, and yet no one does. I don’t mean most don’t do it, I don’t mean it is not done very often, I mean well never. When my company does something better than our competitors, we go out of our way to show our claims are factual. Strange huh .... you would think "trust us" would be more than enough, but no, they actually want us to prove it.

geoffkait18,071 posts11-07-2019 11:19am

>>>>>There it is! Just as I predicted two hours ago! It’s the others who don’t understand. It’s the others who make false claims. I used to think this thread was a drama. Now I realize it’s a comedy. 🤡 By the way, your definition of charlatan is bogus, Ethan.

"Just not so open that your brains fall out. It’s very messy and hard to clean up."

I disagree.

"Ethan is good with spinning numbers on a calculator or whatnot, but even a dog or horse can be trained to do that."

How big is the horse calculator? It has to be able to withstand lots of force.

“At the scale of a group, repeated local influences among group members may give rise to complex patterns of opinion dynamics such as consensus formation, polarization, or fragmentation [8]–[11]. For example, it has been shown that people sharing similar extreme opinions, such as racial prejudices, tend to strengthen their judgment and confidence after interacting with one another [12]. Similar mechanisms of opinion dynamics can take place in a variety of social contexts.”                                                     AND, OF COURSE; Everyone understands, excepts and completely relies on the naysayers, skeptics and pseudo-scientists to be totally free of any preconceived notions, biases, social/peer pressure, or any other, "mechanisms of opinion dynamics", when posting or publishing their bleats. Spare me!

And furthermore, all of that’s explained by the Backfire Effect, oft described by your friend and humble scribe on these very fora. The concept presented in the “Scientific article” is about as original as Skippy peanut butter.

Unfortunately elizabeth,
I feel that many on this forum are too scared to read scientific articles. They are not the safe space they are looking for.

How big is the horse calculator? It has to be able to withstand lots of force.

The big super robust calcs were getting damaged regardless, so we decided to start training hummingbirds to use teeny tiny calculators.

Unfortunately elizabeth,
I feel that many on this forum are too scared to read scientific articles. They are not the safe space they are looking for.

Objection your honor! Obvious projection!
 
~~~~~~~
 
I know plenty of people who have nothing to do with science and have towering capacities for logical deduction and reasoning.

Quality minds are not exclusive to engineering or scientific endeavor.

atdavid

I am not making claims (for the most part), though I may be refuting claims.

You’ve made plenty of claims here, some of them especially absurd.

I am quite certain of something, if someone is spending real money to set up the acoustics for a professional studio, they certainly aren’t going to be hiring geoffkait, not thyname, and sorry teo_audio, but outside your sphere of influence, not you either.

There are about 7.7 billion people in the world, but somehow you are "quite certain" that none - absolutely no one! - would engage these folks for help.

The burden of proof has always been on the one making the claim ... "Trust me" ... only gets you so far.

This is not a scientific group, it’s a hobbyist’s group. No one here owes you documentation of anything. As for the "trust me" part - that’s applies to you, too.

It is totally totally weird how easy it is to set up something approaching a controlled situation for proving claims (and increasing sales) in audio, and yet no one does. I don’t mean most don’t do it, I don’t mean it is not done very often, I mean well never

It isn’t really clear what you’re saying here, but you’re completely mistaken if you believe that setting up a valid controlled scientific listening test is easy. Those that I’ve seen conduct such tests go to great lengths to ensure their validity.

But of course, that isn’t quite what you said, you said it’s easy to set up a test that’s "approaching a controlled situation." Such a test isn’t scientific at all, of course, so its value is no better than the sighted tests that you decry.

Once again, we have a contributor here who pleads with others to conduct the sort of listening tests he himself refuses to do. What’s with that? Beware the audio guru.

"The big super robust calcs were getting damaged regardless, so we decided to start training hummingbirds to use teeny tiny calculators."

It would be interesting to see the methods described in that report about horses being taught how to use a calculator. I guess, it would be the same for dogs, but horses just seem like more striking of an achievement. Way more impressive than hypothetical benefits of temporarily cold cables.

Let's start by addressing this:
geoffkait, how many professional studios have you set up the acoustics for?  thyname?   teo?  

How many of you could write this page? .... or better yet, where are your tons of praised articles and books on acoustics?

https://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html
Thought so ....

cleeds2,533 posts11-07-2019 12:38pmYou’ve made plenty of claims here, some of them especially absurd.

I am quite certain of something, if someone is spending real money to set up the acoustics for a professional studio, they certainly aren’t going to be hiring geoffkait, not thyname, and sorry teo_audio, but outside your sphere of influence, not you either.

I am sorry Ethan. I don't set up professional studios. I am just a commoner, a hobbyist. This is not a job for me

• Now, lets address this one.

First, what is the goal of the test? Is it to prove that A is better than B? ... nope, that would require a properly administered test (which by the way is not hard, just requires methodology)
No, our goal is to validate or disprove the claims which include, but are of course not limited to:

• There was a huge and immediate change in the sound
• The bass was extended and tighter
• The highs took on an almost ethereal quality
• The change was not subtle, it was enormous.
• How anyone could not hear a difference, I have no idea
• This "product" will always make a noticeable difference

So, you see, proving or disproving these claims does not require a highly detailed scientific study to attempt to isolate one variable in a situation where many variables can change, often without notice. This is a single variable change, and we don't need a huge sample set of people, we only need 1 person -- the person making the claim, but sure, if you would like to extend it to all people making the claim to increase statistical sample size, then sure ... have at it.  The thing is Cleeds, proving something true to a level of reasonable doubt (we are talking a subjective subject) does require a somewhat robust experiment. However, we are not trying to prove something is true, we are trying to prove something is false, and that only requires one case, but if you would like to prove it false with many people, I am all for it :-)

I cannot be expected to tell a difference on a different system. I know my system inside and out, and can tell even the slightest change:

• Great, let's do the test on your system.

You can't tell the difference in a fast switching test. I need more time to listen, X needs to settle, etc.

• Great, no problem. Take absolutely as much time as you want, as long as you don't know which change is made.
  

You can only tell on certain music.

• You can use any music you want and listen for absolutely as long as you want.

I don't even know why anyone argues this point any more. Every excuse has a solution, and for every solution, there will be another excuse ... including your unfounded difficult to do a scientific experiment excuse ... because as I stated above, it is not.  If you or anyone else claims that:

• They can always and easily hear the difference on THEIR system

Then all one needs to do is replicate the test, double blind on their system.

If one claims:

• Anyone with good ears can easily hear the change on a highly resolving system.

Then all one needs to do is allow them to configure a suitably resolving system (of their choice) and then let them pick the people with "good ears" and run the test (double blind).   If those people can't show any statistical ability to detect the change, and keep in mind these are people motivated to do that, then you have proved the statement false.

It is totally totally weird how easy it is to set up something approaching a controlled situation for proving claims (and increasing sales) in audio, and yet no one does. I don’t mean most don’t do it, I don’t mean it is not done very often, I mean well never

It isn’t really clear what you’re saying here, but you’re completely mistaken if you believe that setting up a valid controlled scientific listening test is easy. Those that I’ve seen conduct such tests go to great lengths to ensure their validity.

But of course, that isn’t quite what you said, you said it’s easy to set up a test that’s "approaching a controlled situation." Such a test isn’t scientific at all, of course, so its value is no better than the sighted tests that you decry.

Once again, we have a contributor here who pleads with others to conduct the sort of listening tests he himself refuses to do. What’s with that? Beware the audio ignorant.

Whatever you do, NEVER recommend Synergistic Research’s "HFTs" as a viable room treatment in any forum where Ethan Winer participates. If you do, you will be faced with the wrath of the Guru of Acoustic Science, Winer himself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• "I feel that many on this forum are too scared to read scientific articles. They are not the safe space they are looking for."

"Scared?" Really? How about just not interested? I’d rather poke an icepick in my ear than to read some of that scientific psychobabble.

Wanna talk about music sometimes? How about single malt Scotch, or motorcycle racing? or cycling?, or surfing? or fishing, or the 2020 Corvette, or the grandkids ... or just about putting a mono LP recorded in the early 50s on a turntable, playing it through a great audio system, and just being astounded by how great it sounds?

And by the way ... the comments above are not intended to be an "attack," or even "criticism" in any way. 
Frank

Hey oregonpapa,

You installed the GATE and you said it made an absolutely night and day difference in your system. If I am mistaken, you already had some level of power-conditioning, expensive power cords, etc.  I thought the whole point of those things is so that something like the GATE would not be needed.

If the GATE truly makes the tremendous difference you claim, wouldn't that mean that all the other power products and tweaks were perhaps not performing nearly as well as you thought ... I believe you claimed those made a tremendous difference as well.

atdavid

First, what is the goal of the test? Is it to prove that A is better than B? ... nope, that would require a properly administered test (which by the way is not hard, just requires methodology)
No, our goal is to validate or disprove the claims ...
So, you see, proving or disproving these claims does not require a highly detailed scientific study

You can set any goal for your test that you like. If you want it to be scientifically valid, you'll have to follow established protocols for that.  It's often not as easy as it looks!

... proving something true to a level of reasonable doubt (we are talking a subjective subject) does require a somewhat robust experiment. However, we are not trying to prove something is true, we are trying to prove something is false ...

Again, you can set any goal for your test that you like, even going so far as to refer to yourself as "we." But please don't come here and demand that others conduct a test for you. "We" have no such obligation. This is a hobbyist's group.

atdavid ...

The Gate truly made a night and day difference. And yes, the Sound Application power conditioner made a significant difference too, especially after I took it apart and treated the interior, including the underside of the lid with PPT's Total Contact.

The loom of cables I'm presently using are the Bee's Knees too.

With all of that said, The Gate allows all of the gear that comes after the wall socket to really show their mettle. The Gate purifies the AC coming into the system.

It is rather astounding how much grunge comes through those lines. When the grunge is gone, then one can really hear what the rest of the gear is really capable of.

 In a much earlier post, I made the comment that after installing The Gate that I knew the ARC REF-75se was a good amp ... but THAT good? I also made a comment about the brilliance of the design of the ARC electronics. I really didn't fully appreciate that before installing The Gate.

So, you've missed the point entirely. The tweaks made before The Gate was installed made significant improvements on their own, and I reported on that. After The Gate was installed, it was like putting all of the previous tweaks, cables, electronics on steroids. 

Comprendo? 

Frank

"I’d rather poke an icepick in my ear than to read some of that scientific psychobabble."

Huh, that is quite a feeling. Thankfully, scientific psychobabble makes it possible to repair some of the damage from trauma sustained by poking things in one’s ear. Not all of it, for that more scientific articles and psychobabble are needed, but some.

Not really a true literature search, but google, sheds some light on it...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15742770

With some glimpse of techniques.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1488253

A bit more important psychobabble than cold or hot cables, fuses, or other topics frequently discussed here.

Sorry, Ethan dude, but I’m not into the whole Pro audio bag. I like to think outside the bag. Pro audio and AES are way too stodgy for me. But as Bob Dylan says at the end of his records, good luck to you! 🤗

Come on, Ethan! Do I look like the kind of clown who could start a whole movement? I attack you guys because you’re awful. Everybody is awful these days. It’s enough to make anyone crazy. 😛 But it IS fun, I no longer pretend it’s not.  Is that my defense for attacking pseudo-skeptics? No, they couldn’t carry a tune to save their lives. 🤡

Has "The Amazing Randy" resurfaced? I get so excited when someone says: "Trust me", it's so presidential, it must be true.

This Ethan person undoubtedly has a very powerful personality.

Look at this thread. Almost everybody has some opinion, mostly negative and very strong, about him.

If he were really worthless and unimportant, wouldn't you just shrug your shoulders and laugh him off?

I had never heard of that man nor am I understanding why some of you think he is participating in this thread.

glupson ...

I'm not at all denying that readers of scientific psychobabble aren't necessary. I believe quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. If it weren't for these guys, we wouldn't have trains that run on time, planes flying near the speed of sound at 35,000 feet taking us across the country in under five hours. We wouldn't have satellites, cell phones, big-screen TVs or traffic control without them. My point is ... I couldn't care less HOW these things work, only that they do. I certainly don't want to read white papers on the technicalities, or minutia until my eyeballs glaze over either. I'd rather have a bird fly up my nose. :-)

Now then, back to the record vault. 

Frank

And yet here you are .. on a thread about the science of opinion.

Rule no. 1 Never get involved in a thread about science with English majors and retired car salesmen. 

🏙️🤓⬆️

Where are the smiley faces when you need them?

This Ethan person undoubtedly has a very powerful personality.

He does not have a very powerful personality.

What he has is akin to intractable psychosis, which he forces on everyone else. The man has serious issues.

I’ve dealt with him before, back on another forum, and the best thing that can be done with him is to get rid of him, for the good of all.

Otherwise it’s just problem, after problem, after problem, ad nauseam.

Ethan is a nasty little old man. And dangerous. One time in a Facebook group, he got into an argument with me simply because I mentioned a reasonably priced Schiit DAC (of course, all DACs sound the same to him, he has graphs to “prove” it). Then he pointed out his 4,000 Facebook followers, proceeding to “subtly” ask me where my house is 🤭😬

Skerdi is that you?

thyname ... 

Same thing with me ... most likely on the same forum you mentioned. I simply recommended SR's HFTs to another member as a simple, effective method of room treatments. You would have thought I unleashed the wrath of Satan himself. The man went completely berserk, and his personal attacks upon me were absolutely disgusting.

Frank

This thread would make a nice feature article about science for the National Enquirer.  Inquiring minds want to know. 

Yes Ethan, it’s me. I am so scared right now 😂