View Single Post
  #2   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

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.