Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

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

  #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.

  #3   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #4   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

Tom said


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

They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.

  #5   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

S888Wheel wrote:
Tom said



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


They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.


Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?

--
-S.



  #7   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
news:u2x6b.282041$Oz4.74308@rwcrnsc54...
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?
Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?


When I read the article the first things that came to mind were some
of the more ridiculous claims regarding cables (signal or A/C),
magnetic pucks, green pens for CDs, etc.

However, the ABX issue did come to mind and clearly qualifies as one
of the areas of endless debate here.


Let me first note that in 3 years I have seen green felt
pens, magnetic cones, Shaktis whatever mentioned frequently on RAHE.
Never, but never by anyone SUPPORTING it. Always but always by someone
fighting its imaginary supporters- and brilliantly winning the debate
(reference Don Quijote vs. windmills)

I listened to green-inked cds. and heard no difference . I
listened to silver, triple-platted interconnects with teflon
insulation and heard clear difference from zipcord , easily
reinforced to ME by the left-right with random changes protocol. This
does not mean that others will hear it too.
I'm not in a position to say that the green pen and
magnetic puck people are deluded. There is no way of checking what
their brains perceive. Many people like wines that I think are awful.
Certainly not by subjecting them to a DBT. A DBT for
comparable AUDIO COMPONENT comparison, applicable to everyone with
normal hearing, is NOT a researched, peer reviewed technique- Mr
Nousaine, Mr. Sullivan please note. (Some hope!) And Mr Wheel, please
note: no, it is not a "valid claim". It is an extraordinary claim due
for experimental validation. Long overdue in fact-
some 30 years.
The answer , Mr. Nousaine to your asking for "proof" of
sighted perception is that by this time you should have grasped that
individual perceptions about differences between comparable audio
components are neither provable or diprovable. They are OPINIONS.
I can not recall anyone "claiming" to have such
"proofs". But they abound in your postings. If anyone were silly
enough to say it he has an exact counterpart in the DBT "I have a
foolproof disproof" mythmakers.
I'll repeat: come up with references to peer-reviewed
research about comparing comparable components by ABX and we'll talk
again.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #8   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

Steven said


Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?


I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
opinion.

  #9   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said



Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?


I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
opinion.



Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.


In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
1) claiming that's been a mistake
2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
is 'special'


Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.







--
-S.
  #11   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science


Tom said


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


I said



They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.


Tom said



OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.



No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass
on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I
was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that real
scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Simple science question Schizoid Man Audio Opinions 0 February 5th 04 11:45 PM
rec.audio.opinion, isn't exactly rocket science Basksh Abdullah Audio Opinions 0 October 10th 03 12:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"