Where have you gotten this notion audio equipment can’t be analyzed at levels audible to humans and actually even bats but I doubt it does them much good. We can test equipment to tell us how much noise and distortion is present in certain frequency ranges. From this we can determine what types of systems most people like. Do they like neutral systems that produce flat frequency response and low distortion or exaggerated highs in the listening window, rolled off high frequency and bumped low bass, etc.. Assemble a system you enjoy and science can analyze it to conclude you prefer accurate uncolored sound reproduction or distortion generators. There’s no right or wrong but this idiotic idea science is useless in analyzing electronics and transducers in the human audible range is nonsense.
Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?
Measurements are useful to verify specifications and identify any underlying issues that might be a concern. Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.
Why is it so?
Why is it so?
238 responses Add your response
There’s no right or wrong but this idiotic idea science is useless in analyzing electronics and transducers in the human audible range is nonsenseYour notion of science is TOO limited... Psycho-acoustic science is not electronical analysis .... Hearing is the basis of psycho-acoustic phenomenon analysis.... You cannot predict what an audiophile will like, replacing his ears by ONLY electronical analysis...This is technological idolatry... You are like those who negate science, save you confuse the complex scientific analysis with technological simplistic views of your own... Audio is not REDUCIBLE to electronical tools....Audio experiuence and experiments is for Brain/ears not mainly for microphones... I based my own experiments with my ears ON science facts, but i do not replace and never replace the testimony of my hearing by tools or numbers... I used them not BELIEVE them.... Science can help us to walk, but cannot do the walking for us... Maps are not reality..... microphone are not ears.... Etc.... You are like someone who need a scapegoat: an objectivist need a subjectivist like 2 neighbours who like to kill one another.... Enjoy your game... I prefer psycho-acoustic science....With psycho-acoustic science minimalistic facts and experiments, any investment in electronical costly upgrade was useless for me now.... Science spare me much money.....Objectivist or subjectivist faiths are costly audio marketing religions in audio forums.... Sorry..... |
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. |
@clearthinker, "Properly derived science contains only provable conclusions that are bedrock. All the rest is conjecture - interesting but not the basis for anything solid. The problem is bad science. This is in the ascendency. One reads the most obviously idiotic nonsense every day, often obtained by extrapolation. Extrapolation is always bad science. The one I like best was around 15 years ago. ’All the snow and ice on the Himalayas will be gone in 30 years. Palpable stupidity at the time; we’re about halfway there and there’s plenty left. I said at the time that if the entire Chinese nation went up there with blowlamps working 24/7 it wouldn’t happen." The problem is bad science and in particular its politically motivated uses - Covid-19, vaccine wars, PCR tests, global warming etc etc. As far as Hi-Fi goes, it would seem pretty obvious that the use of science and technology has come a very long way from its origins in the 1920s and 30s. This situation with ever increasing use of software and modelling is only going to become more prevalent. The subjectivists, with all of their capricious moods, opinions, and pursuit of a personal audio nirvana may not be happy - but this can only be good news for the other consumers. |
"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?" "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." It's the complete (or: perhaps, willful) ignorance of so many, as to what's either been proven and/or obviated, since the dawn of the Scientific Method, that still astounds me. It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas. What those that adamantly want their antiquated, "Science" to make sense (ie: their Math to eloquently balance, or: their universe to yet be based on Newtonian, or strictly Relativity principles) have missed, is that, SO OFTEN: what's been observed and tested/proven makes no sense. That's been the argument between some of the greatest minds, especially in the area of Physics an Electrical Theory, since the early 1920s. Anyone that's been paying any attention, AT ALL, to what's been happening subsequent to that time period; would be up on all of that! 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. UNLESS of course: they were a Professor in a field such as Geology or one of the Liberal Arts (ie: Home Economics). In which case: my apologies! |
Science is the starting point and it is the end point in audio reproduction. Science is what gave us the medium and tools to enjoy music from the wax cylinder to digital storage and on to processes unknown. It won't be brain dead audiophiles arguing over $200 fuses and $10,000 cables and the shilers that promote them but the theoretician and engineer that fails and succeeds that moves us forward. Scientists who "argue" over the esoteric boundaries of QM have no interest in the mundane workings of basic sound reproduction. Any new findings from research in areas of nanotechnology, nanoparticles, quantum interactions etc.. that may trickle down to the audiophile bubble will be the result of dedicated engineering not the smear this goop on your wires crackpots. |
"Science is what gave us the medium and tools to enjoy music from the wax cylinder to digital storage and on to processes unknown. It won't be brain dead audiophiles arguing over $200 fuses and $10,000 cables and the shilers that promote them but the theoretician and engineer that fails and succeeds that moves us forward. Scientists who "argue" over the esoteric boundaries of QM have no interest in the mundane workings of basic sound reproduction." Thanks again. That exemplifies the kind of ignorance, to which I referred! ie: Were it not for the study of QM and QED: there would be no, "digital storage" to enjoy. Nor: LASERs, transistors/semiconductors, home computers/laptops, smart phones, atomic clocks, GPS, MRIs, etc. That's NOT any kind of debate. It's what's known as, "HISTORY"! Talk about, "brain-dead"! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/ Even the wiki-physicists have more understanding, than some in this forum (how pathetic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics |
You're unable to comprehend what was written or being intentionally obtuse. Noone is debating digital storage, lasers , laptops, smart phones. PET, MRI etc.. those are not the "esoteric" boundaries of QM those are the practical results of years of research. Those who research these areas have very little to no interest in the practical results that's the province of applied science. And once again it will be the engineers and technicians who apply this knowledge not the ignorant who think sound reproduction is some mysterious goop slopped on a wire or cable lifters isolating EM fields from carpets. |
What you stated in the post to which I referred, and: "Noone is debating digital storage, lasers , laptops, smart phones. PET, MRI etc.. those are not the "esoteric" boundaries of QM those are the practical results of years of research." seem (somehow) contradictory. Especially, since you seemed to be objecting to my comments, specifically concerning QM and QED. But: I'm glad we agree! |
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. MEANWHILE: those of us that do experiment with our equipment and rooms, or, "smear goop" on our cables, to improve such a basic scientific fact as conductivity, will go on enjoying the enhanced musical reproduction we've sought. |
djones51 You're unable to comprehend what was written or being intentionally obtuse.It's odd that this site's self-proclaimed objectivists and measurementalists so often resort to classic ill logic - such as this ad hominem attack - rather than assert their position with reason. It just seems so inconsistent. |
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. 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. BUT: it's been the history of science and invention; scoffers and naysayers WILL ALWAYS abound! |
| Post removed |
rodman99999,
Where in the world did you pull that from? I'd respond more, but all I see is a jumble of non-sequiturs. |
Quantum anything means "not seen but there". SO what WE think we see is NOT in reality, what is really there, AT ALL. In other words what you SEE is NOT what you ARE on the quantum level. Science is evolving as do ALL things. Weather it's digressive or aggressive, it makes no difference. WE the biomasses called "Humans" MOVE ON. Even the "Dark ages" and the USSR had merit. It shows how WE as a RACE of people no matter WHERE we are, WILL not stay the same. We will change, we will GROW... Into WHAT. That is the BIG question.. I'm lookin' UP, and the heavens are gazing BACK.. Life on this Earth and on this 4th of July is GOOD. Thanks to science.. I prefer applied science. I'm tired of figuring things out. What do you mix to get ORANGE again? BLUE and RED of course. AND you thought it was REDS and YELLOW, close!!! Happy Happy |
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?
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). |
That you're unaware (poof) and need to be led by the hand (or nose, as the case may be), proves my point (you're a poser). I'd discuss QED, Electrical Theory and the proofs that there's much more going on, than shoving electrons through wires, but: it would clearly be a waste of keystrokes. Regarding the senses: not that I actually expect you to read anything, lest you awaken from your educational coma, but: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-quantum-mechanics-lets-us-see-smell-and-touch https://www.the-scientist.com/features/quantum-biology-may-help-solve-some-of-lifes-greatest-mysteri... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839811/ This one may not apply, as you (et al) obviously have trouble with your synapses: https://www.livescience.com/quantum-like-model-of-decision-making-proposed.html Once again: "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." What is it about POSSIBILITIES, that triggers the Naysayer Church's popes, so? OH: I get it: It's HERESY! ps: I don't post such things, expecting to enlighten the willfully ignorant. I just believe someone else may be interested in what's been going on, all around us, in the realm of the sciences, for the past (100 or so) years.. |
I myself experiment ONLY and have bought no costly "tweaks" and upgrades, using , listening experiments, with homemade controls in the mechanical, electrical,and very importantly, in the acoustical embedding dimension of my audio system.... All my results are inspired by simple science facts (Helmholtz resonators and diffusers in my acoustic settings for example and damped springs for vibrations), or complex psycho-acoustic research to create my imaging effect, and also by simple experiments with cheap unexplained working artefacts (schuman generator, ionizers, shungite+copper plates and other controversial means). Is it not science spirit to experiment like i did? My goal was not publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal, then i never need organized blind-test like claim some crusaders here...Selling no cost creativity is not selling costly products and boasting about them... My goal was to prove that with a relatively modest system we could achieve great results at PEANUTS cost....Against all the marketing conditioning, i used simple science and experiments... Then some "pseudo-scientist" could come here and had come, mocking me, and asking for a blind test.... 😁 Objectivist/subjectivist debate for me are ridiculous and child like.... But i prefer those who use also their ears to those who read only dials to create their audio room...Acoustic is a science where ears are not replaceable soon... For the science debate i will not add anything.....Save this Goethe quote below, written 150 years before Thomas Kuhn... If you wait for science or religions to understand your life you will wait very long.....😁 Use you senses and couple them with your brain.... Meditate.....Experiment....Or experience.... By the way, listening music,we dont need to prove anything, only to hear the changing sounds....Those who need proofs here are the marketers of new products or the zealots pseudo-scientist crusaders that want to save humanity from buying a product that they believe is useless...I myself dont need one or the other kind of people, because i dont plan to buy anything soon, i prove for myself that audiophile experience is possible at low cost.... Call that a delusion if you own a 500,000 audio system.... My 500 bucks system is not on the same level for sure but not so far from it in quality that most would believe.... The truth is that it is better to read simple acoustic science than buying costly products... « History of science is science itself»- Goethe |
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. |
Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE.Ionizer... Shumann generators... Shungite plate+copper.... These three are not validated official text book science facts for use in audio... Only results of other people experience or for the last one my own creation and experiment only....They work for me and for many people... Then, are we crooks? You are like the pope invoking theology.... And promising to inquistion psychics and astrologers....(it is very easy to point to some validated efficient psychic in history by the way among the crooks, for astrology you dont have a clue anyway) A simple listening experiment of my own is not an official scientific fact for sure but it can work without your papal signature or permission... You are a crusader not a scientist.... You are in the same boat that those believers who negate science...The only difference is the color of your shirt compared to them....Go on warring against audiophile, putting all of them in the same bag for the sake of your dogmatic conception of science.... Go on with your congealed opinions and dogmas.... I prefer simple very simple scientific fact , and experiments that cost nothing... After all no audio book or scientific forum never teach me about my shungite use in audio.... Is this a proof that i am an idiot or a crook? No it is a proof that i am creative and only crusaders believe with a pair blinders....I am not a believer even in science.... Science is there for teaching us to do more than believing ....And science is there to be used but NEVER to be believed...You can use Newton laws but you dont have to believe them to be ultimate gospel.... They are not.... By the way all audiophiles here are different of one another, labelling them is not rational.... All alleged scientists here are also different, labelling all of them with the qualification of "voice of science" is irrational... Science facts are there to be used or negated or modified and experimented with..... A decree against audiophiles or psychic is James Randi science.... a show..... |
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? |
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 ;-) Even if English is not my first language you cannot win a debate with me because you are irrational ... You are a philosophical simplistic mind.... You attack people easily....You dismiss anything which is not in your book.... You are a crusader in an audio forum face it.... People are here to exhange ideas about their audio system and experiments not to be given lesson about blind test.... 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.This is one expression of your strategy and bad faith dear crusader, putting all phenomenon which you dont approve in the same bag.... And you pretend that it is "science"... You are pathetic my friend.... And by the way for the usefulness of walking barefoot some doctors think that this is good....For sure they will be put by you in the same bag with me and astrologers and all these deluded audiophiles... https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-9099/the-surprising-health-benefits-of-going-barefoot.html It takes one second to look for a positive reason to walk barefoot by a doctor on the net.... Then for your next post keep psychics, astrologers and audiophiles in the bag but exclude this doctor.... Because it dont take a big brain work to know that some barefoot walking can only be good for the health.... This negative decree from you about barefoot walking illustrate well your crusader mentality.... You are a believer not a scientist....You adopt science like other adopt astrologers....I prefer experimenting and not judging others.... I suggest to you barefoot walking because this improve rational thinking by paradoxically putting emphasis in the brain on more sense data coming from the feet....This will relax your crusader mentality.... And before you dismiss this barefoot doctor from you science list.... Read this truly scientific paper about the very usefulness of a study about barefoot walking..... https://jfootankleres.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13047-016-0166-1.pdf |
Prof- "Do you have anything more robust?" I have implemented plenty into my system that is more "robust" but way beyond your ability. All I'm asking you to do is: 1. Select a CD for experimentation and listen to it 2. Take the cap off a green permanent marker 3. Apply green marker to the outside edge of a CD 4. Listen to treated disc 5. Decide for yourself if it's worthwhile & let us know Easy |
By the way prof read this about magnetic field effect for healing.... There is another doctor here that think that it is possible is it another crook? for you for sure... But being rational i will not go full speed against him ...Read his short areticle... It is not a proven scientific fact but it seems that this magnetic field effect deserve scientific experiments more than your power to decree what is science and what it is not are suggesting to us in your post... https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/magnetic-field-therapy-overview For faith healers and phone psychic i will let you keep them in your bag with deluded audiophiles tough....It will be too long post for me to reveal the limiting power of your "scientific papal brain"... |
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. |
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. |
You are irrational... When you condemn barefoot walking you condemn it nevermind any theory proposing explanation, assimilating it to superstition in astrology and anything out of your mind... This article of your neurologist criticize some theory pretending to prove barefootwalking benefit not the barefoot walking benefit itself... On the other end a scientist saying that science will never prove the benefit of barefoot walking by principle is not a scientist in my book... He is more cautious than you anyway.... By god you seem to be gullible. Yes i am credulous, and very skeptical at the same times in general... Credulity being "A "and skeptical being " B", My working brain go from A to B and from B go back to A, with some new ideas about a way to prove or disprove my belief... It is called thinking... Exemple: Faith healer.... I am credulous than i accept that it is perhaps possible.... It is "A"... By "B" i doubt it but instead of rejecting the idea i keep his possibility in my OPEN mind....It is called going from B to A .... And times to times i have discovered very interesting fact about faith healing...Is it not better than your decree mentality? It is not scientifically proven for me BUT very possible by my inquiring thinking process...There exist for example HISTORICALLY some event linked to some faith healer that really make us skeptic about the impossibility of faith healing... True Skepticism is a sword with 2 sides by the way..... « Why do you keep a rabbit feet in your pocket Groucho? Because it is the only way to keep rationality when you speak with a robot»- Groucho Marx dixit |
You misunderstand.Another distortion for keeping your crusader agenda... Read the OP stating question.... This thread is not your property , on the contrary the OP suggest wisely that known engineering facts ( i will reserve the name of science for other things) perhaps dont explain all there is in audio experience... Then boxer is right and has a good perspective....He dont look like a crusader at all unlike you.... Me i am perhaps a crusader also, 😊against people who give lesson and label all audiophiles in the same bag because they dont use blind test... Science is not first blind test but begins FIRST by anecdotal individual experiment, especially with a specific audio system in a very specific electrical grid in a very specific room with very specific pair of ears.... In an audio forum we exhange about INDIVIDUAL experiences.... Not about "scientific decree" mainly and blind test in particular.... |
Prof- 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. |
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 is a perfectly rational attitude for yourself...Congratulation! But why imposing your scientism ascetic attitude to ALL here.... Because in an audio forum criticising ANY out of the norm experience and experiments if not blind tested first is no more rational.... It is a crusade... By the way a schumann generators cost 10 bucks ....to experiment with it do not cause great lost... And a shungite plate is also very low cost... And i never bought ANYTHING over few bucks.... I enjoy a S.Q./ cost ratio out very high....Only basic science or experiment with some device which others claim to be useful: schuman generators or Helmhotlz devices, or minerals like Herkimer diamond and shungite... Or my own method to control vibrations with springs and other materials at peanuts cost....Great success...Peanuts costs.... Science is not a crusade against : God, astrology, homeopathy, magic, or barefootwalking and religion...Dawkins is no more useful than Randi....When science is a crusade it begin to mimic an ideology and transhumanism irrational faith and idolatry is not too far... Science is a method of inquiring mind linked to experiments, not an ideology to be used in crusade with the blindtesting obsession....Science is really NOT a religion or a cult....For example science is not in any way linked to the cult of atheism or to the blind testing obsession in audio.... Like famously say Groucho Marx , keep a rabbit feet in your pocket to remind you of the necessary added healthy creative irrationality in your life but to remind you also of the unavoidable unhealthy "irrationality" in any human life.... Irrationality like reason come ALWAYS in 2 flavors...The right posology is a balance between the 2 flavors... When there is no balance, reason mimic irrationality, and irrationality mimic reason... To improve i recommend reading Lao-Tse, and Goethe....After that Ernst Cassirer a friend of Einstein.... |
What, "prof" (snort of derision) posted and my first response, to this thread: "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?" "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." Referring back to my first response to this thread, in which I challenged their knowledge of the sciences (07-04-2021 3:20am), in light of the many changes, this past century, I stated: "It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas." Their first deflection: 'rodman99999,
Where in the world did you pull that from? I'd respond more, but all I see is a jumble of non-sequiturs. ' Referring to my post (07-04-2021 1:43pm), in which I mention the study of QM broadening the horizons of many branches of Science, they provide further deflection: "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?" AND: "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)." To which I replied with four precise examples, that would have satisfied any enquiring mind (the expiring mind: not so much, obviously). Which they deflected with: "rodman, You are all over the place." YES and: exactly my point (QM appears, "all over the place", and has affected virtually every branch of Science) Their continuing theme: "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." Followed by more deflection, in that particular post. What they can't seem to grasp, is what I stated in my first post: "It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas." Then: their very clear lack of comprehension, of the point I've made* (VERY CLEARLY), twice, on this same page: "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." * I've never tried to, "validate" anything. For the third time now: "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." Perhaps that, "possibilities" is greater than two syllables, is an issue? Were they ever even a, "prof" in such a liberal art as Home Economics; it would have required much better comprehension skills. I'm convinced: their field (if any) must have been Geology, based on their marked, petro-cephalic disposition. Don't waste your keystrokes on such. Happy listening and enjoy the journey! |
"It’s not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it’s moved on, in so many areas." You are right for sure.... And my Goethe quote say the same thing....Science is not a decree someone can use against spirit, astrologers, God, or magicians.... Science is an aspect of the travel of consciousness looking for truth and experiments and reason engrossed by creativity because reason without creativity is a dead body.... Science is not a mere word used in audio forum to justify blind test where blind test has no real usefulness : in your home or small personal audio laboratory..... In a hundred continuous experiments i never used " organized" blind test, only my own accidental or improvisezed blind test....We are audio enthusiasts not marketers trying to use blind test to sell a drug or a dac, nor zealot Randi disciple trying to debunk their claims...Nobody need statistic to create an hi-fi system....(By the way only an idiot or a showman like Randi can offer money prize to debunk psychic faculties, they are all over the place and history illustrate it with plenty of examples but zealots dont like history because history always destroy dogmas) Life is not simple save for simplistic mind.... Rodman you battle with zealots not scientists... There exist in history example of religious heart with very scientific mind and also of atheist and materialist with zealot mind.... Q.M. killed materialism in 1925... And any human perception involved Q.M. effect and life in his more basic working like photosynthesis work only because Q.M. No science today is able to explain hearing.... We know many facts but none of our maps explain reality.... Save for transhumanist or simplistic mind confusing spirit/brain/and A.I together or conflate consciousness/"matter"/ and algorithm... The least possible philosophical position today is a form of idealism or panpsychism...Bernado Kastrup is easy for materialist to read i recommend it.... Cassirer or Goethe are not for too simplistic mind Alas!... Mine (idealism) was inspired from mathematics all my life...Not the mathematic technology of A.I. for sure.... 😊😊 |
Quantum mechanics did not kill materialism if you think it did then try a simple experiment. Try walking through a brick wall. Quantum mechanics is not fully understood and to continue to fall back on, " well what about QM " is lazy thinking to say the least. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/9/1533 |
What you hear in your room from your stereo and all the adjustments and tweaks has more to do with psychology than Quantum mechanics. Constantly posting vague references to QM without identifying what exactly it has to do with your perception of sound is really just useless. I'll leave you to wallow in your psychobabble, I find it tiresome. |
All we hear is placebo if not blind tested and walking against a wall is the proof of material reality against Q.M. interpretation... 😊 No answer is needed....I will not post any article about wall and Q.M. save if you ask for it and i will even explain it to you because it is a complex matter .... You are not tiresome... I smile....But like stand up comics repeating these 2 mantras above make you tiresome at the end... |
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. 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:
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. |
