In rec.audio.opinion Denis Sbragion wrote:
Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as
...

you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.

Well, we don't *really* know if the moon is actually
green cheese, or whether it's 'real' at all.

I mean, by Gareth's logic.

Try to keep an open mind, will you? ;