AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - science vs. pseudo-science

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:S7R6b.385366$o%2.173822@sccrnsc02...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

( see below for previous discussion)
Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?

Nousaine:
But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise?

Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
I wonder.
Ludovic Mirabel

Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never
confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound.

I 'wonder' too.

Dear Mr. Nousaine. I have no idea what "claims". you're
referring to and how exactly you want them "confirmed".
I have my likes and dislikes in wires,amps, photographic
techniques, reproductions of paintings, clarinets, pianos, wines and
cheeses. I can try to convey my likes more or less convincingly. I do
not expect others to share them- in fact I'm certain that 99% of
humanity simply couldn't care less and - a secret- neither do I. If
you know of anyone saying that he has a "scientific" provable claim
on these matters, I'm with you, he has to prove it. And so do you.
I do not believe that any way to *confirm* or to negate my
preferences exists. In fact it never ceases to amaze me that in this
one and only area of preferences, opinions, tastes , likes and
dislikes people search for *confirmation*. Sighted bias is bad- no one
has a patented , researched *confirmed* cure for it equally usable by
everyone.
Like with photographic techniques and painting reproductions
so with audio. You and I like it or not, we are on our own with oour
tastes and our brains such as they are.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
.net...
Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
discussions here that seem to go on forever:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
participating in these endless discussions over the years.

I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
with the readers:
" Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
conclusions."

"...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
scientific enterprise -- yet
think of themselves as "scientists."

Contrasting science and literatu
" Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."

wrote in message
.net...
Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
discussions here that seem to go on forever:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
participating in these endless discussions over the years.

I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
with the readers:
" Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
conclusions."

"...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
scientific enterprise -- yet
think of themselves as "scientists."

Contrasting science and literatu
" Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."

Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?

But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise?

Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
I wonder.
Ludovic Mirabel

Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never
confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound.

I 'wonder' too.