The argument to end all cable wars - Page 2

Thank you for getting it... but would head-fiers be happy with one person? Or do you guys need a crowd because I might not have enough funds for a crowd, maybe one or two people.

in response to Randomasdf
========
so you're telling me that if the only connection I have to a test is my ability to hear the outcome of changing cables, that it is psychological?

Heres the scenario
I have done the following prior to the test:
1. heard all 6 cables and claim that I detect differences in each (audible differences)
2. Been blindfolded, and placed on a memory foam mattress with a 7 button controller in one hand.
3. I push the button to begin the test.

Test
Music plays in 1 minute intervals, same sample, same player, amp, speakers etc...
After 1 minute, a computer randomly chooses which cable to go next and this repeats every 1 minute interval.

During the 1 minute interval, I am allowed to
1. Press any of the 6 buttons indicating which cable I believe is the one playing
2. Abstain from pushing any button

If I press one button, the computer locks out any other answers. If I chose to press no buttons, the computer marks that as my answer (unknown).

This is done for 30 minutes, perhaps longer/shorter whatever.

The only difference here is what I can hear.... how is any of that psychological? Once again, do not interject what has been hashed out in the past into what I am arguing -because I am not making the same arguments as other cable believers. I am merely trying to demonstrate that it would be up to science to explain what I perceive should I be able to perceive it and demonstrate that I am able to.


==============================

True conclusion of all this:

OK so now that, I hope, things are clearer...

What's the importance in all this?

All comments regarding cables, and debates on cables even on other forums (as seen in this thread as well), keep going back to the idea that science disproves people's claims about hearing something. Mind you, YES these head-fiers, audiophiles have not gone through rigorous demonstrations that they have the ability to detect sonic differences (although if memory serves me correctly, there was a cable builder who was able to demonstrate the ability to detect, different sounds in various grades of silver -wyvrn audio I believe- but thats a side note for now), but all of the arguments that people have so far against cables are arguments against their experience.

Everyone argues that "science tells you can't tell the difference." Science tells you that "you can't hear this, or that." Well that is what I hope I have brought about here. Its that Science CANT tell you that you don't experience something, science CANT be used to disprove experience.

Science is limited to the following
1. Prove/Disprove a theory (and if you denounce inductive reasoning -get rid of the prove part)
2. Explain a phenomenon
3. Accept a **demonstrable** sensation as fact/truth

So now look back on all the previous threads/discussions regarding cables and science. Don't all of them (hopefully except for this one) attack a person's experience? And if they do, ask the poster -how can science attack what can neither be proven/disproven by science because it is not a theory but rather a statement of fact regarding the detection of a phenomenon (explicable or otherwise).

There ya go, the real ending to the argument... I should really get used to the flaming by now but thank you for those that have gotten the argument

how is that a tautology? Even your poor characterization of what I've argued here is not even a tautology.

Furthermore I never stated that Science (the scientific method if you prefer) could not prove that cables do not change the sound. I claim that science is still lacking and lacks the ability to explain the phenomenon should it be deemed demonstrable.

Do you think using big words gets you extra points, or that I wouldn't look at what you're writing closely?

1. Testing Proposal
2. right I understand what you're saying, but realize the the cruz of people's arguments (atleast within these forums) is that science tells you that you can't hear differences or that people use science to disprove your experience. And if people truly do mean as you say when they use the word "science" to describe a certain methodology rather than Science (not the process but rather a body/collective of knowledge), then here is my argument against that.

Scientific Testing requires the following
1. Proper identification of a phenomenon to be tested
2. Proper instrumentation capable of testing the phenomenon

Unfortunately
1. Those who test for sound differences do not know what they are looking for. Yes I understand that they are looking for sound differences, but when's the last time you hear someone do a scientific test based on the wide range of possible differences (eg. headstage, frequency response, noise, distortion etc...)
2. Proper instrumentation comes from a strict understanding of what you are specifically studying. Take for example the testing or proof of the existence of the neutrino. Scientists first defined, what a neutrino was and based on understanding what the wished to find they created big vats that could detect a neutrino as it passes through the earth. This was done as well for anti matter, for the aether experiment etc... and Unfortunately, we do not know what it is about this phenomenon that would allow someone the ability to differentiate different cables. It is still difficult to isolate, particularly if we have only a handful of people in the audio world that can perceive the phenomenon, perhaps there are non audio enthusiasts who can perceive the changes on the basis that they have yet to damage their hearing

Its possible to do the testing but the real point I am striving for first is a means of getting beyond the arguments that people have regarding cables. Trust me I'm tired of those arguments as well because they're old (and don't work) so we need some new ones.

The idea that a scientific method or process can prove or disprove an experience is false and perhaps a misunderstanding at best. Science has its limits, and I'm afraid it cannot tell me that I don't hear something or feel something -it is limited to description. The scientific method, when applied to this notion of testing what you are hearing is flawed because it is missing the two criterion I posted above regarding specific testing and proper instrumentation. Using a flawed (scientific) method/process to test sonic attributes of cables resulted in useless data because what exactly were you testing? In all of these tests, people were in fact testing experiences rather than a phenomenon (hypothesized to be true or otherwise). If they were testing a specific phenomenon, then they would have used instruments designed to pick up a particular phenomenon, not a person. By using a person to detect sonic differences, they were in fact using science (scientific method) to try and prove/disprove an experience. And that, I'm afraid, is something that science cannot do, and if it can, if science can dictate to me what I feel and perceive, then science is no longer a method, procedure, or a collaboration of knowledge -it is a religion, an ideology, and perhaps a prison for my mind.

I gave you an if then argument
"If there is a person capable of demonstrating the ability to differentiate between 6 different cables (through the isolation of all other possibilities but the changing of the cables), then is it up to that man to prove that cables make a difference or is it up to science to prove that the cables make a difference?"

The hypothetical test, scenario etc.. are merely there to appease people's appetites for the legitimacy of the first part. Furthermore, the "testing" itself is not a test on cables, but rather a test on the experience of the phenomenon. There is a difference between the procedure to test (or better yet to demonstrate the existence of ) the phenomenon and the procedure to later test the cables (in search of the phenomenon).

Your statement "It can only show that it is more likely that such experiences arise because of phenomena other than the effect a cable has on the signal running through it." clearly shows the reason why I needed to put forth the hypothetical test. It is to demonstrate that the only difference/change was the cables.

You other comment "Unfortunately we can't and we must take into account psychological phenomena like confirmation bias. I can shout that they sky is green at the top of my lungs, hell I can experience a green sky, but once it is independently shown that the atmosphere filters non-blue light my experience says nothing about the objective situation (not that it did in the first place either)." also shows the need for the hypothetical test to be put forth for reference because it would remove the psychological influences in the demonstration. Furthermore if you experienced a green sky, and demonstrate that you in fact do experience a green sky - I would run tests to determine why you would experience a green sky, not say Oh but science tells you that you can't experience a green sky.

Lastly the attack is on your improper use of tautology and your mischaracterization of my argument. Why use big words when you don't have to.. or at least use it properly to avoid confusion. I'll keep out the personal attacks if you keep out misused big words.

Wavoman, I hope you read my post (I apologize for there being so many) regarding the true motive behind this. It is not to in fact create a scientific test that can end the cable debate, but it is to get rid of, hopefully, the most common attack against cables, which if you look around the forums is the experience of hearing something. Furthermore, the question of expensive versus inexpensive, will be something I tackle later on, if I can. But for now I am content in trying to get this simple point across.

But my suggestion to the issue you bring up is that the word preference already assumes that someone has in fact passed my hypothetical test, and there are individuals who can differentiate between various cables. And if that has occurred then I'm afraid, your question as you phrase it cannot be answered by science as well. You can gather a lot of data, statistical and otherwise, but it is ultimately an aesthetic question. Do you prefer picaso or the comic strips in bazooka joe?

My constant argument against individuals who use the "objectivity in science" and the advances in statistical data will be this.

1. Gather data on 60% of all americans living in the US (large data set, simply to negate comments regarding sample size)
2. Record their age, height, sex, body parts
3. Come up with a conclusion.

The stuff above is all objective, I will be more than content to agree that up to that point science is objective and that statistics is ok. But then you have 2 conclusions based on the same exact data.
Bill says "The average american has all their body parts"
Ted says "The average american has 1 testicle, and 1 ovary"

Both statements are true, both come from the same data, both are in regards to the body parts of americans. What we notice is that there is an injection of subjectivity in reaching conclusions -mind you the most important part in a scientific endeavor. So because of that, science cannot be purely objective. Additionally the second statement is TRUE. Absolutely true, yet we all laugh at it and realize its pointless and meaningless. and that demonstrates some of the difficulties and problems with statistical evidence -you make of it what you will.