"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Oct 2005 02:19:43 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.

So what? Unlike yours, his theory held water. Calls to authority don't
work, Harry, we need to see *evidence*.


My what? I don't recall postulating a theory here...but Mark and Michel
have. And who is calling to authority? I simply pointed out an example that
calls into question the dismissivness of some of the replies to Mark and
Michael.


You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.

And he received much the same response initially.

Quite right, too. OTOH, his theory predicted things that were observed
to be true. Mark and you are mere speculators, offering neither
reasoned argument nor evidence.


Years later until it could be "proved". The proof or "evidence" as you
would have it did not come before the fact.



Yep, they have all learned the currently acceptable paradigms to a
fair-thee-well. But sometimes it is hard for someone in such a position
to
step outside the box and look at the bigger picture.

Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........?

That was Doppler............


Right you are. But, Einsteins theory of relativity was also generated
musing about the passing of trains (he was a station telegraph operator,
after all).


Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more
optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the
basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into
method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this
discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we
still have to carry on somehow, don't we?

Not if you already know all the answers already.

Nobody claims to know all the answers. What we *do* claim is that, if
you wish to claim that all available scientific knowledge is wrong
about audible differnces, then you are required to provide very strong
evidence in support of your position. So far, we have seen *zero*
evidence, and not even any reasonable theories.


Theories about what is wrong, and possibly why, first. Once you have a
theory, it can be tested. That's what Mark and Michael have provided. Then
come the tests. You simply reject the possible theory, because it threatens
the tests you believe in. That is called faith, not science.

On the other hand, those of you who have swiped abx testing from audiometric
research have never validated it for your intended use of it...and such
validation is essential because of the questions Mark and Michael raise (and
I and others before them). Moreover, the Oohashi test provided a glimmer of
evidence that results are different between monadic testing of musical
segments with after the fact reporting, and short-snippet, quick-switch
testing without adequate time for emotional reaction to register nor musical
context to be established.

There is no reason an open scientific mind couldn't accept the possibility
that Mark and Michael are correct, and work to help test the hypothesis by
beginning to think/talk about ways to confirm or deny the theory/hypothesis.
That unfortunately has not been the reaction here.