Harry Lavo wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...

snip

Real scientists investigate observed, or observable (i.e. inferred or
extrapolated from existing predicates, though not directly observed)
phenomena. You really need to get a grip on the difference between theory
and speculation. A "what if" without any experiential underpinnings is
speculation, and while that speculation may be of interest to some
specific individual, or group, scientific investigation of such is
unwarranted.



Keith, when dealing with music and a judgement as to how realistically a
piece of equipment in a system reproduces it in approximation of the real
thing, the judgement is of necessity subjective.

Agreed.

Their is no such thing as "objective" music.

Actually, there clearly is "objective" music, in that it physically
exists, and can be objectively observed and measured. If you mean that
music has no *intrinsic* aesthetic quality outside of the context of an
individuals' subjective appreciation of such, then I would agree.

So while experimentation of necessity must find a way to
"objectify" the subjective, using the tools of psychology and the social
sciences, it is not essential to do so to form the contextual hypothesis.

The point, Harry, is that an hypothesis requires *some* evidence, though
that evidence need not be sufficient for formulation of a theory.
Psychological and behavioral sciences are predicated on observations,
just like the 'hard' sciences are. That these are externally observable
manifestations of internal, subjective, processes is irrelevant. There
are still objective data upon which investigations are then based, or
directed. When a postulate is posed, sans evidence or observation, that
is speculation. Nothing inherently wrong with speculation, we all do
it, but let's call it what it is.

In fact, such "inner examination" has been the wellspring of much progress
both in psychology and in the social sciences.

Well...that could be debated as well :-) However, when performing such
"inner examination" one must always be cognizant that one is a) using a
tool to measure itself (i.e. using the mind to examine itself) which has
many rather obvious opportunities for error, and b) to the extent that
the results of such examinations *are* accurate, they are not tethered
to objective reality (and therefore useless scientifically) unless the
external stimulus can be defined and measured. Full characterization of
an independent variable is of no utility when the concomitant dependent
variables are unknown (or unknowable).

A major difference here, it seems to me, is between you engineers

Pardon me, but I'm not an engineer. I'm a cellular biologist by
training, although I did take an AA in electronics some years after
university.

who are
comfortable treating the problem as one of traditional sound-based auditory
measurement, and others of us who see the problem as more complex and when
it comes to musical synthesis by the brain, as more contextual in nature.

I think everyone here agrees with that Harry. You are, however,
conflating two rather disparate, and qualitatively distinct processes.
Clearly the appreciation of music is affected by context (and of course,
let us not forget that visual stimulation is part of that context). But
just as clearly, the only audible contextual component is what is
'measured' by the ears. If a stimulus does not cause an auditory
response, there is nothing for the brain to 'synthesize' with (at least
not based on auditory information).


Nobody would dispute that eventually any hypothesis as argued here would
have to be reduced to factual evidence. But to do so requires funding,
time, and an organizational resource devoted to testing. That is beyond the
ken of we amateurs, who gather here because of our hobby. But it doesn't
make the speculation invalid.

No it doesn't, Harry. However, let's recognize that it *is*
speculation, and however interesting that might be to hobbyists like us,
such speculations are not the interest of funded researchers, and never
will be. And that was the basis of my post, i.e. scientists are *not*
typically interested in speculation, there are far too many
observations, for which the underlying mechanisms are not characterized,
for time and money to be spent on researching speculations.

Keith Hughes

Chung wrote:
And sadly, there are those
who will entertain you just to take the opposite position from ours.

The sad thing is that no one has, with any real scientific insight,
responded to the issues I raised on this group.

Instead, the predominant response has been an obstructionist, defensive
position like yours.

You can't say I wasn't patient.

Mark

Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:
And sadly, there are those
who will entertain you just to take the opposite position from ours.

The sad thing is that no one has, with any real scientific insight,
responded to the issues I raised on this group.

Instead, the predominant response has been an obstructionist, defensive
position like yours.

You can't say I wasn't patient.

Mark

Well, Mark, we gave you several reasons why no one has any scientific
interest in pursuing your question further. You just prefer to interpret
that lack of interest as something defensive and obstructionist from us.
But hey, you can always continue that with people like Michael Mossey,
right?

Chung wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:


Chung wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:


Mark, you should realize by now that you are not engaging scientists in
scientific speculation.


And the reason is that nothing that Mark has said so far on this subject
is of the remotest scientific interest to any scientist.


Let me get this straight. What I've said is, if context affects
perception, then it sure doesn't look to me like DBT's are going to be
a good way to find out how it does. So, why would they be?


DBT's are for measuring audible differences. So many "contexts" are
non-sonic in nature. Therefore it does not interest me to discuss how
DBT's are not good for controlling contexts.

For instance, the appearance of a piece of audio gear affects
perception. DBT's clearly are not a good way to find out how appearances
actually affect perception.

Which has nothing to do with what I've been asking: if you go back and
look at my example, it's obviously the sonic context that I'm talking
about.

Of course, there is a strain of thought on this newsgroup that holds
that "Sighted testing is unreliable" is an adequate response to *any*
question or claim, no matter how irrelevant it may be in fact.




And you, Chung -- a proponent of DBT's for determining significant
sonic differences


Actually, subtle differences...

-- think it's an adequate response to this to say,

basically, that the question doesn't interest you, and wouldn't
interest any scientist, because I haven't defined the question well
enough?


The question you "defined" does not make sense to a scientist.

Says you. The relevant science here is psychology, and the question is
whether certain perceptual processes that take place over time are best
measured by DBT's. So, for example, are DBT's well suited to measure a
difference in perceived loudness between two events, if the sonic
contexts of those events have an influence on perceived loudness? And
are DBT's well suited to help us discover whether, and how, sonic
context affects perceived loudness? I explained what I thought the
problems we either the comparison is time-distal or it eliminates
context, and some explanation would then be needed of why it is OK to
eliminate context. Sorry if that doesn't "make sense" to you. But
your insistence on measurement is misplaced. Specifying a method of
measurement may be part of some scientifically rigorous *answer* to the
question, but it's not a condition on the question itself; for the
latter, what's required is *reference* to the process that, later on,
gets measured. Otherwise, questions like "How do we measure X?" or
"What is a correct definition of X?" can't even get off the ground.

Mark

Mark DeBellis wrote:
chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:

Measure what? Perception over time? Can you define that in a way that is
measurable first?


Measure the respect in which they sound different. You want me to
specify what will measure it before asking what will measure it?
Otherwise you're not interested in the latter question? Am I getting
this?

Define it so that it is measureable. In other words, what is perception
over time, and how can one measure it?


As an *example* of perception over time, I mentioned perceived loudness
(in relation to context). Are DBT's a good way to discover whether
sonic context has an effect on perceived loudness? Or to measure that
effect, if any?

Mark

You said that we are taking an obstructionist/defensive position on your
questions. I try hard to understand what you are saying in the above
paragraph, and I still have no idea what you are talking about. If you
want people to respond, you have to ask questions that can be understood.

1. What do you mean by perceived loudness? I know we can compare two
sounds and come up with a qualititative response of which one *appears*
to sound louder. Are you talking about which one of two sounds appear
louder? How do we measure perceived loudness?

2. What exactly is sonic context?

3. How can you control sonic context?

4. Why would your questions be of interest to anyone?

Let me try to ask a question using your particular style, and maybe you
can see the pointlessness of this type of questions: Our mood seems to
affect our perception. How can anything measure the effects of our moods
on our perception?

Is that an interesting question to scientists?

Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:

Measure what? Perception over time? Can you define that in a way that is
measurable first?


Measure the respect in which they sound different. You want me to
specify what will measure it before asking what will measure it?
Otherwise you're not interested in the latter question? Am I getting
this?

Define it so that it is measureable. In other words, what is perception
over time, and how can one measure it?


As an *example* of perception over time, I mentioned perceived loudness
(in relation to context). Are DBT's a good way to discover whether
sonic context has an effect on perceived loudness? Or to measure that
effect, if any?

Mark

You said that we are taking an obstructionist/defensive position on your
questions. I try hard to understand what you are saying in the above
paragraph, and I still have no idea what you are talking about. If you
want people to respond, you have to ask questions that can be understood.

1. What do you mean by perceived loudness? I know we can compare two
sounds and come up with a qualititative response of which one *appears*
to sound louder. Are you talking about which one of two sounds appear
louder? How do we measure perceived loudness?

2. What exactly is sonic context?

3. How can you control sonic context?

4. Why would your questions be of interest to anyone?

Let me try to ask a question using your particular style, and maybe you
can see the pointlessness of this type of questions: Our mood seems to
affect our perception. How can anything measure the effects of our moods
on our perception?

Is that an interesting question to scientists?

Absolutely. For example, the scientists who test anti-depressants have
not retreated from an attempt to quantify mood.

Mike