Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

This thread is yet another example of an audiophile mistaking his own ignorance of the science for "a failure of science."

pedroeb


Try reading Floyd Toole's book:


Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms



It's LITERALLY about what you are referring to and explains many of the ways sound character has been correlated to subjective impressions, and how listener preferences can be largely predicted based on that research.


So your thesis is simply wrong out of the gate.   Read the book, it helps answer your question, if you really want the answers.

Everyone with a pet belief he can't justify empirically tries the same mode of defense.

So we wee that tired old refrain from some audiophiles "Science has been wrong before you know!"  and "science doesn't know everything!"

It's the same refrain used by every crackpot theory in the world.
Ask yourself:  When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?
That's right, by more science.  It's a self-correcting method.
You don't get to say "I'm justified in believing something that contradicts or isn't validated by current science...because MAYBE science is wrong and we'll discover I'm right."    Literally any nonsense idea would fly under such conditions.  The rational approach is to realize how science is a way of sifting the wheat from the chaff, the hypotheses that hold up to empirical scrutiny, and those that don't.

rodman99999,

"For one NOT to be current, on what's been going on; as regards the inventions and scientific proofs, based on such a, "crackpot theory" as either QM or QED and yet refer to themselves as a, "prof", seems to me: the height of hubris."

Where in the world did you pull that from?
I'd respond more, but all I see is a jumble of non-sequiturs.

djones51,
Agreed.

The amount of pseudoscientific thinking in this hobby is tiresome, isn't it?

Even understanding in the Biological Sciences has been expanded/deepened, through the studies of QM, regarding how the senses and brain function, in many areas.

Like...what?

I don’t see Floyd Toole - an actual scientist- appealing to QM in his science of psycho-acoustics. You know something he doesn’t? What would that be?

BUT: it’s been the history of science and invention; scoffers and naysayers WILL ALWAYS abound!

You keep invoking science.

What is it that has been scientifically established, that you think anyone is scoffing at?

What’s your actual point. Can you be clear, maybe with some actually relevant example, rather than vague waving to Quantum Mechanics, which just happens to be the de rigueur move for countless crackpot theories? (I’d be a millionaire if I had 10 cents for every new age purveyor appealing to the mystery of quantum mechanics).

rodman,

You are all over the place.


First, I’d written:



Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?
That’s right, by more science. It’s a self-correcting method.


Do you agree or not?



If so, the old "science has been wrong" bit is a red herring. Yes, science has been wrong, but you don’t get to promote a dubious claim that isn’t scientifically verified "because science has been wrong before."


And yet a lot of audiophiles (and psychics, and astrologers, and New Age charmers, and people with patents on perpetual motion machines etc) hang their hat on that as a response when their views are challenged for better evidence than anecdote.


Next, what in the world do those links have to do with any particular claim you may have in mind - something you imagine a "naysayer" critiques?


I mean, if you think for instance that an audiophile claiming a green marker on a CD, or a mpingo disc under his DAC, or any number of wacky claims is somehow off the hook because of those links, that would be silly, right?

If you tried to leap from some Discovery article citing a paper of researchers "controlling a cell’s interaction with light" to validating some audiophile’s tweak...that sounds like a profoundly incautious, unscientific leap...the type no actual responsible scientist would make. But...be my guest...show us the leap to relevance.



So, again, try to be clear. If you are going to invoke SCIENCE, can you maintain an actual SCIENTIFIC mindset? Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE.

mahgister, FYI:   I have come to ignore your replies, based on past experience, and seeing you produce more of the same. Don’t let that stop you though ;-)

boxer12
Note the theme of this thread.

I can find similar testimonies for people "improving their health" by "grounding themselves magnetically to the earth" with their bare feet.And for the healing power of magnetic bracelets. And for faith healers, and prayer and even phone psychics.

That’s where most subjective anecdotes stand. Do you have anything more robust?

boxer12

You misunderstand.

This thread is about how science, and the scientific method, bares upon audio claims.

You are simply repeating a request to engage in non-scientific anecdotal method, with zero control for imagination and bias.

If you can pass a listening test with such controls, showing you can indeed hear a difference between a CD green penned and not, without "peeking" - be my guest.

mahgister


By god you seem to be gullible.


Of course I referenced a specific theory of earthing: "improving their health" by "grounding themselves magnetically to the earth" with their bare feet." I’ve already seen the "theory" taken apart by knowledgeable people, so yeah I’m familiar with it, which is why I brought it up.


By contrast, in a thread with science as it’s theme, you say "It takes one second to look for a positive reason to walk barefoot by a doctor on the net"


Sure, one second of googling...and you think this addresses my point and are apparently convinced "it’s a real thing!"



That’s a really steel-trap, critical, scientific-minded approach you have going there.


Here’s someone a little more knowledgeable and cautious about the "theory" - a clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine:


https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/earthing/


Anyway, that’s your nip at the bait. You’re back on your own now.Bye.

Prof-
FWIW, I never misunderstand what you write. In this case I was attempting to open your mind a little & improve the performance of your audio system at the same time.

Thank you, but I prefer to allocate my money toward things that actually are likely to alter/improve the sound. There is no plausible reason it would change the sound, or any good evidence it does.

I get that you are trying to help, and no doubt now have the impression "Well, what a closed mind!"

But...Do you do everything anyone ever suggests you try? For your audio system, health, whatever? Or do you employ some critical thinking to sift where your time, money and energy are better spent?   That's all I'm doing.

It seems rodman99999 can’t or won’t answer direct questions clearly for some reason.

So this is for others...


As I’ve written before, it’s typical for believers in dubious claims, under pressure from skepticism, to fall back on classic responses as a defense.To the psueodoscienfic ear they sound robust and profound. To the more careful thinker familiar with the logic of empirical inquiry, they are recognized as irrelevant fluff.



Rodman99999 has provided typical examples.



Scientists have been wrong before:

rodman99999: I’ve mentioned elsewhere, on the ’GoN: If the world’s best inventors, throughout human history, hadn’t ignored, "scientists", naysayers and scoffers (such as some of those, above): we’d still be living in a relative Stone Age, with respect to technology.

ie: When the steam locomotive was invented: the day’s best, "scientists" claimed man couldn’t survive speeds in excess of 20 MPH!

Interesting, that most of the electrical theories their ilk espouses, came from the same century (the 1800’s).

And anyone currently with a patent on their perpetual motion machine (there are tons) will make the same "point." "Scientists of the day scoffed at X, but they were wrong, weren’t they!"



But of course, this is irrelevant. We are always in a position of relying on the best established science we have. If you want to make a new claim or overturn current well-justified science, you have to actually produce BETTER science, that is produce evidence/theory rigorous enough to justify your claims, especially if this overturns or extends current science.


So in the face of skepticism raising the fact any scientist or science was later understood to be incorrect or incomplete does ZERO to provide any credibility or justification for your current claim.




But since this *sounds* like it’s making some profound, important, educated point relevant to a dubious claim, it’s just what you find in people thinking pseudo scientifically.




Science doesn’t know everything:

That science has not yet provided us the means (tests or measurements) to explain why many of us hear the things we do, with the choices we make, in fuses, cables, etc: doesn’t mean we don’t.

Again, just like above. To the psuedoscientific ear that sounds like some substantial reply. But it’s empty for the same reasons as above.



One may as well say "Science hasn’t the means to falsify the claim that aliens with unknown technology from an unknown dimension are manipulating my dreams." Well..strictly speaking, yeah. But that’s not how rationality works. If you have some novel, interesting, controversial or extraordinary claim, it’s up to YOU to provide POSITIVE evidence that a rational person should consider it plausible, much less demonstrated.Countless people think they have extraordinary powers and fall back on "just because it may not be established scientifically doesn’t mean I don’t have these powers!" It’s the go-too "point" of flakes and crack-pots the world over.
And it’s question-begging: to say "I hear the things I do and just because science can’t measure it doesn’t mean I don’t," is typically the exact claim under dispute. Often, someone making this claim provides no actual good evidence they "hear the things they think they hear" to begin with!   Nothing that allows us to distinguish the claim from their own imagination. 



And finally, the appeal to Quantum Mechanics rears it’s head:

"My position has always been: with what we’ve learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of POSSIBILITIES; as to why we MAY hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons."

Yet when rodman is asked for any example actually relevant to anything he "hears" in his system...he punts back to "just saying it’s POSSIBLE."    Whooooooo!  And down the rabbit hole we go.



It’s precisely this cloud of irrelevance and mush that you see in defense of every goofy claim under the sun. "I believe I have this power or experience, and it’s not validated by known science...but it’s POSSIBLE...because scientists have been wrong, science doesn’t know everything, and...Quantum Mechanics!!!!"


Look...the claim that it’s POSSIBLE is something that can be justified to show it is actually PLAUSIBLE and a REASONABLE explanation based on science.   As in "this audio tweak changing the sound is POSSIBLE based on this theory and this robust evidence."      In which case: show some bloody examples for why we should think so.


Or someone is just using "possible" in the utterly empty sense of "logically possible" in the sense you can make up statements that "science hasn’t strictly disproved."   Like "I can hear angels singing on Mile's Davis' Kinda Blue recording.  Prove me wrong.   Except you can't just use science, because it's been wrong before and even if you come up with a test, I can just say your test isn't sensitive enough to detect what I claim to hear!"

It’s deflection: the fall back of psuedoscientific cranks.

Well, I asked for a clear example from rodman99999 about some tweak he "hears" making a difference at home, and we get yet more scattershot rambling and links...as if someone else needs to do the job to piece it all together.


Again, this is a thread about science and audio.


rodman99999, if you are such a fan of science, you must acknowledge the relevance of blind testing, right?   Have you successfully passed any blind tests for your tweaks?


That's the problem:  for most if not all the controversial claims in high end audio, nobody has produced reliable results showing people can tell differences when they are not peeking.


*(there are some intriguing reports here and there, e.g. occasionally for cables, but there doesn't seem to be any sturdy replication of these results to put the debate to rest).

     Is the unfathomable irony, of one that IMAGINES themselves a fictional intelligence operative, posting a quote from ANOTHER fictional character, lost on anyone?

                                       Then: there's, "prof" (snort of derision)!

^^^^^^
Look class!  This is the sound someone makes when they can't produce a reasoned rebuttal to an argument.  

;-)

     'Blind Tests To Determine: Do Either Red Or White Boxed Wines Go Best With Chef Boyardee Pizza?'

Ok, I've given up on Rodman.  Looks like that's the best we'll get from him.