A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter.com

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter.com forum » rec.audio » High End Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

science vs. pseudo-science



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 7th 03, 03:51 AM
ludovic mirabel
external usenet poster
 
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

Ads
  #2  
Old September 8th 03, 02:42 AM
Nousaine
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 8th 03, 08:32 PM
ludovic mirabel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:<S7R6b.385366$o%[email protected]>...
>
(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  
Old September 8th 03, 08:34 PM
S888Wheel
external usenet poster
 
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.

  #6  
Old September 8th 03, 10:10 PM
Steven Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
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.

  #8  
Old September 9th 03, 03:59 AM
S888Wheel
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 9th 03, 04:47 PM
S888Wheel
external usenet poster
 
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.
  #10  
Old September 9th 03, 04:58 PM
Steven Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
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 10:45 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 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.