AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - A model of the brain, & quick-switch

wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
haven't seen any.

Do you mean we'd need evidence in order to have reason to look at
whether the paradigm is limited, or we'd need evidence in order to
decide that it is in fact limited?

The former, and it is up to you to supply that evidence, if you think
the theory is incorrect.

If the former, that sure looks
circular. Isn't Mike's point that the reason why we haven't seen
countervailing evidence is that it hasn't sufficiently been probed for?

In other words, we cling to the theory that elephants can't fly because
we haven't expended the effort to find elephants that can fly.

But we have many reasons to believe that elephants can't fly, beyond
the lack of immediate examples. And, as has been pointed out to you ad
nauseum, we have many reasons to believe that certain sonic differences
are inaudible.

Are you prepared to argue that zoologists ought to expend time
searching for flying elephants, simply because a few ill-informed
people believe that elephants might be able to fly? And if not, why do
you make the identical demand of psychoacousticians?

p.s. If I understand him right, Mike is saying that perceptual set or
attitude can make a difference. It seems to me the logical response to
this is to ask, why should we think that that's true, and why would
that point to a limitation in the current approach? In other words, to
argue and discuss. It does seem to me that to ratchet things up too
quickly to the demand for "evidence" puts things at a later stage than
the conversation naturally takes, or should take. This is a discussion
group, not a data reporting group (we don't necessarily have the
framework yet for collecting what would be relevant data). I would
rather see people explain here *why* the methodology works, or why it
is or is not immune to Mike's objections, or what problems they see
with the objections. (Which to some extent they have done. "Sighted
testing has such-and-such problems" is, so far as it goes, a helpful
and constructive response; "Science is on our side" less so in my
opinion.) I would rather see more actual substantive argument and
discussion than continual sniping over where the burden of proof lies;
how (as Mike asks) does the latter get at truth?

About flying elephants. We in fact have excellent reason to think
there are no flying elephants. If, however, all our observations are
of birds in cages then it might not even occur to us to ask how fast
they can fly!

Mark