Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The argument to end all cable wars
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The argument to end all cable wars - Page 3

post #31 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
Also, I really love the repeated references to "anecdotes" by some objectivists. The arguments for DBT's are strong enough that one doesn't need to disparage other positions by using loaded words like "anecdotes."
Do you think anecdotes are sufficient evidence in a scientific inquiry? Is identifying evidence as anecdotal disparaging it?
post #32 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
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.
You are complaining that science may lead to incorrect conclusions? Yes, that is true. The spirit of scientific examination would lead us to test those conclusions and see how valid they are. So my human subjectivity might lead me down a given path, but with the help of others attempting to test my new theory, I can eventually conclude I am on the right (or wrong track).

Your hypothetical golden-eared wonder hears something. His own and independent testing confirms he hears it. Science doesn't insist that he doesn't hear it. It seeks to explain it.
post #33 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjisme View Post
Do you think anecdotes are sufficient evidence in a scientific inquiry?
Sufficient for what? I think observations, which are what some people call "anecdotes," are probative of the existence or non-existence of a fact. Are they conclusive? Typically, no, and especially when there is evidence to the contrary (depending on the nature of the contrary evidence). But I don't think observations should be completely ignored in the absence of conclusive evidence on the other side of an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjisme View Post
Is identifying evidence as anecdotal disparaging it?
Yes, that's clearly what the intent is, IMO. Otherwise, people would use a term like "observations" or some other similar term.
post #34 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
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.
Then I completely stand by more original statement that in such a hypothetical world where testing shows that people are able to discern the difference between cables, then science would of course show that there is a difference in cables and the entire burden of proof argument would be meaningless. It is a completely tautological statement because you are saying "if science shows x, then what would science show?"

The differentiation between a test of the phenomenon of hearing a cable and a test of physical differences between cables means little considering that nearly every single physical cable measurement is met with claims that the only way to test a cable is through experience (just look at any other thread and you will see posts along the lines of "you can't measure soundstage").

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano
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?"
If such a person exists, and such a characteristic is demonstrated to a degree deemed acceptable by the scientific community, then it is proven that cables make a difference. Beyond that, to qualify those differences, it would require the scientific method.
post #35 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
A wise old judge told me once that whenever he reads a brief that has a lot of statements in it to the effect that something is "clear," that there is "no" evidence for something, or that something is "always" or "never" the case, he always suspects right away that the situation is not so clear, etc., as otherwise the matter would speak for itself, and not require hyperbole or categorical statements.
"Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization)."

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logical fallacies are never valid. This isn't up for debate, and the rules of propositional logic are indeed black and white. As for the situation "not requiring hyperbole or categorical statements," unfortunately that's just how logic and logical fallacies work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
Also, I really love the repeated references to "anecdotes" by some objectivists. The arguments for DBT's are strong enough that one doesn't need to disparage other positions by using loaded words like "anecdotes."
What else can you call them other than anecdotes?

Anecdote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident."

That's exactly what an impression is.

"Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy."

"In all forms of anecdotal evidence, objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence."
post #36 of 123
I'm not sure I would accept Wikipedia as an authoritative source for anything* (also several parts of the article have circular reasoning), but if you read the entire article, the type of evidence we are talking about in these threads, which are first hand observations by people who can be examined about what they observed, do not, IMO, constitute the type of anecdotal evidence or hearsay evidence that the article is really talking about. A careful reading of many of the supporting statements and examples in the article seems to confirm this, IMO.

Nevertheless, I understand better now why people might use the term "anecdotal evidence" in these discussions, although I still think it is somewhat disparaging, inaccurate, and circular, and quite clearly intended to be disparaging, as the first sentence of the article demonstrates.

Note also that Wikipedia (assuming one accepts it for the sake of argument) distinguishes between "anecdotal evidence" and "anecdote." I believe my objection was to the latter, in terms of describing people's observations on this forum. I think the latter term is not realy appropriate, and I think the former is a little better (at least it uses the term "evidence"), but the meaning of the former term is pretty obscure given all the different things that are said in the article.

In any event, and perhaps most important in all this, one can call them "observations," and it will not undermine any point that has been made or can be made in support of the objectivist position.

* See, e.g., http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-authoritative
post #37 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
1. Ok with you there
2. I never said what I did with cables was scientific. Since this is the point that Royal crown objects to as well, here's my response.
-I PROPOSE NO SCIENTIFIC TRUTH in the statement regarding the existence of an audible sound - I am in fact demonstrating the EXISTENCE Of a phenomena that I DETECT. By some physical reason, I am able to detect differences between 6 cables Sonically. So take a set up, blind fold me, put me in a chamber so that I feel no vibrations, nor much of anything else, cut my tongue out so I cannot taste (get the picture) all I have is my hearing <I'm doing this to just simplify things.
This was not my argument. You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post

1. Science is based on
a. Observations (experience)
b. Reproducibility of a phenomenon
2. Listening to cables is based on
a. Observations (my experience)
b. Reproducibility of a phenomenon (To me)
I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filburt View Post

2. You then decided to analogise this to the fact that what you do with cables is at least in some superficial sense based on observation
It is irrelevant that you add the caveat 'to me'; you've nonetheless analogised to an empirical process in defending your claim of cable differences. That is, you've indicated your belief is based upon some defensible claim of observation.

Attempting to disclaim this by stating 'I PROPOSE NO SCIENTIFIC TRUTH', followed by stating that you are 'demonstrating the existence of a phenomena [you] detect is essentially contradictory. You're basically telling me that, while you make no claims about the existence of something, you make claims about the existence of something. This is because you are already from the start claiming that your basis of proof is observation, and making affirmative ontological statements regarding it. To then attempt to deflect any substantive criticism of your statement by 'proposing no scientific truth', when such a statement necessarily includes negative ontological inferences, is contradictory.

Quote:
Now a second person, or even third (if you really wanna double blind this) switches the cables after ever 1 minute song sample (same sample plays, everything similar except the cable). I get out of the chamber, and I pick out, CORRECTLY, which of the cables is which - I differentiate between all of them. To negate any future revisions on Uncle Erik's argument -I do not say if I prefer any cable, I am merely able to pick out and differentiate a particular cable form the rest.
Narrating expected results to a proposed means of testing your perception is not proof of any sort. I have no idea why you even added this.

Quote:
Once again, this is a means of me proving the existence of some physical/psychological sound or thing that I can sense (through my ears) that allows me to differentiate the cables. ONCE AGAIN: NO scientific claims. The burden is in me proving that there is something uniquely sensible about each cable through my HEARING. Hopefully that's enough to clear up Royalcrowns' post.
It is not error to suggest that you will need to do more than simply tell me what you observed in order to prove the existence of a phenomenon. Science is not some sort of weird out-there-in-the-ether irrelevant tool that is unconcerned with subjective phenomenology. Science is about disciplining empirical methodology. To fail to conform to scientific methodology in an empirical proof simply invites criticism since you haven't really told us a whole lot about actual causation. Instead, you've made a conjecture about it and taken it for granted that your experience alone is sufficient proof, which is not really any sort of proof at all.

Quote:
3. You're off base. I am not making some inductive proof that cables (their construction or composition) result in different sounds. I COULD CARE LESS. I am merely demonstrating that there exists such a thing- that I can experience through the use of my ears. A thing that exists due to the changing of the cables in my stereo system.
To tell us that your bare statement that you hear something is 'demonstration' of existence, in and of itself, is simply false. I assume this is not what you mean. Unless you have a dramatically different idea of 'exists' than people normally associate with the word, stating something exists, based on observation, in the manner you have presented, is an inductive argument.

Quote:
4.I do not make any illogical (absurd) claims in my statement. What I state is that Science cannot disprove my experience. How can a field, a practice, a process, a branch of knowledge (I'm reaching here) that is BASED on Emperical evidence ,on EXPERIENCE, disprove MY EXPERIENCE? Isn't science the process (I don't want to argue that its something more so I'll just go with it from Uncle Erik's suggestion) of describing phenomenon? A process that utilizes EXPERIENCES to further promote an understanding of the underlying principles in the physical world?
It seems you are essentially telling me that science cannot disprove subjective experience, since there isn't inter-subjective observation. While at least arguably true in a limited sense, it's largely irrelevant to the issue of proof that you are attempting to offer.

By suggesting that cables make a difference, you are making statements that extend further than a pure subjective sort of domain. In other words, it's a statement no one should care about if you honestly expect that the property is not inter-subjectively transitive (e.g. others would hear such a thing). Thus, to retreat to an argument that science cannot touch your subjectivity is, while in some limited sense true, completely lethal to your overall project of suggesting that cables are significant.

Quote:
If you were to approach a color blind man and ask him what he sees - would you dismiss it (assuming you did not know what color "blindedness" was) if he could demonstrate that he could not in fact see color? Would you then not test him? And try to find an explanation for this strange phenomenon- this experience? So what of the audiophile that can hear, will you denounce his experience (if demonstrated to be true eg. 6 cables example)? Or would you now try to determine HOW it was so.
If the hypothetical colorblind man could demonstrate that he could not, in fact, see color, that process would necessarily involve falsifying alternative theses such as that he is lying, mistaken about the names of colours, and so forth. The existence of colorblindness was proven scientifically, and is diagnosed scientifically. Your argument here, if anything, largely demonstrates the point.

Quote:
Lastly...
NO, there is no categorical distinction here. The issue here is, everyone here against cables uses CURRENT science to attempt to disprove the audiophile audible account. as you stated, SCIENCE CANNOT DISPROVE EXPERIENCE -if anything it FEEDS on it. At the end, science can only find a way to explain the current phenomena it cannot disprove the phenomena -and if there is no possible way for science to explain the phenomena then science needs to have another revolution. Think coppernicus, newton, einstein type revolutions. But I realize this won't occur because the phenomena only occurs in a small minority in the population -it isn't enough to be of concern for the great irrefutable, always true pillars of science (sarcastic abit at this point).
Claiming cables make a substantive difference necessarily involves at a minimum some sort of claim of inter-subjective relevance, and once you reach that point, science is relevant. I don't understand why you think the role of science is to explain pre-theoretical notions of what exists. That isn't how science works; that's how, at best, pseudoscience works. Science is simply a regimented proof methodology for managing competing theses about a particular physical phenomenon. As such, it's entirely relevant unless you mean to tell me that you don't take seriously the idea that what you're talking about is actually either (a) caused by cables or (b) audible by anyone else. I doubt you're suggesting this, so your argument here essentially offers you absolutely no defense of your position.

Quote:
The real issue at the moment is people believe that if it cannot be explained by science, then it does not exist. Now that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Just look at other phenomenon that science could not explain in the past (during that time of course). Look at magnetic fields, the propagation of light (in relation to the aether), and the neutrino (with relation to balancing the electron spin number). In the past, these phenomena did not lead people to conclude omg omg omg omg... science can't explain it OMG THEY DONT EXIST AHHHAHAHAHAH. NO what happened was that science needed to change. There needed to be a scientific revolution to explain the physical phenomena. At the end of the day... science bows down to experience (so long as you can demonstrate it to be a true experience -hence the 6 cable test).
If you cannot empirically prove something to the rigors of scientific methodology, then you are inviting criticism of your methodology because it fails to exclusively support your thesis. In other words, you fail to give people good reason to think that your claim of audibility cannot reasonably be explained by something other than that it is (a) caused by cables or (b) is based on an actual physical phenomenon.

Ironically, other parts of your argument concede this very point, because you've already gone on at considerable length about some prospective blind test. To even suggest such a thing indicates at least some basic supposition that you need to falsify alternative explanations, such as that you are imagining it and would not notice the difference if you could not see the cables. Thus, to then retreat to an argument over whether science can touch a dualist conception of subjective experience is so fundamentally self-effacing I really don't understand the point of it.

Anyhow, I'm not going to pursue a mega post-off over this. You seem very committed to the discussion, and I appreciate that, but I honestly don't have the time or stamina to give such large posts the necessary level of attention. I hope this is understandable; I tried to at least be thorough in this response to you
post #38 of 123
To paraphrase an old saying "Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me" = just because you can't hear what I hear doesn't mean I'm not hearing it.
And, no - no voices in my head told me to write this drivel.
If we could live in a world of nil non-sequiturs, where would the fun be...???
post #39 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcrown View Post
"Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization)."

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logical fallacies are never valid. This isn't up for debate, and the rules of propositional logic are indeed black and white. As for the situation "not requiring hyperbole or categorical statements," unfortunately that's just how logic and logical fallacies work.
Read closer -

"Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy"

That is, if someone said "someone told me they heard differences in cables. cables must sound different. son, i am disappoint.", that would be misuse of anecdotal evidence, hence a logical fallacy. If someone said "I heard differences in these cables", that isn't a logical fallacy at all - it's simply anecdotal evidence. It may not count for much, and it doesn't prove anything, but it still counts for something.

More persuasive would be if there were a study of what percentage of audiophiles claim to hear differences in cables.
post #40 of 123
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filburt View Post
This was not my argument. You said:



I said:



It is irrelevant that you add the caveat 'to me'; you've nonetheless analogised to an empirical process in defending your claim of cable differences. That is, you've indicated your belief is based upon some defensible claim of observation.

Attempting to disclaim this by stating 'I PROPOSE NO SCIENTIFIC TRUTH', followed by stating that you are 'demonstrating the existence of a phenomena [you] detect is essentially contradictory. You're basically telling me that, while you make no claims about the existence of something, you make claims about the existence of something. This is because you are already from the start claiming that your basis of proof is observation, and making affirmative ontological statements regarding it. To then attempt to deflect any substantive criticism of your statement by 'proposing no scientific truth', when such a statement necessarily includes negative ontological inferences, is contradictory.



Narrating expected results to a proposed means of testing your perception is not proof of any sort. I have no idea why you even added this.



It is not error to suggest that you will need to do more than simply tell me what you observed in order to prove the existence of a phenomenon. Science is not some sort of weird out-there-in-the-ether irrelevant tool that is unconcerned with subjective phenomenology. Science is about disciplining empirical methodology. To fail to conform to scientific methodology in an empirical proof simply invites criticism since you haven't really told us a whole lot about actual causation. Instead, you've made a conjecture about it and taken it for granted that your experience alone is sufficient proof, which is not really any sort of proof at all.



To tell us that your bare statement that you hear something is 'demonstration' of existence, in and of itself, is simply false. I assume this is not what you mean. Unless you have a dramatically different idea of 'exists' than people normally associate with the word, stating something exists, based on observation, in the manner you have presented, is an inductive argument.



It seems you are essentially telling me that science cannot disprove subjective experience, since there isn't inter-subjective observation. While at least arguably true in a limited sense, it's largely irrelevant to the issue of proof that you are attempting to offer.

By suggesting that cables make a difference, you are making statements that extend further than a pure subjective sort of domain. In other words, it's a statement no one should care about if you honestly expect that the property is not inter-subjectively transitive (e.g. others would hear such a thing). Thus, to retreat to an argument that science cannot touch your subjectivity is, while in some limited sense true, completely lethal to your overall project of suggesting that cables are significant.



If the hypothetical colorblind man could demonstrate that he could not, in fact, see color, that process would necessarily involve falsifying alternative theses such as that he is lying, mistaken about the names of colours, and so forth. The existence of colorblindness was proven scientifically, and is diagnosed scientifically. Your argument here, if anything, largely demonstrates the point.



Claiming cables make a substantive difference necessarily involves at a minimum some sort of claim of inter-subjective relevance, and once you reach that point, science is relevant. I don't understand why you think the role of science is to explain pre-theoretical notions of what exists. That isn't how science works; that's how, at best, pseudoscience works. Science is simply a regimented proof methodology for managing competing theses about a particular physical phenomenon. As such, it's entirely relevant unless you mean to tell me that you don't take seriously the idea that what you're talking about is actually either (a) caused by cables or (b) audible by anyone else. I doubt you're suggesting this, so your argument here essentially offers you absolutely no defense of your position.



If you cannot empirically prove something to the rigors of scientific methodology, then you are inviting criticism of your methodology because it fails to exclusively support your thesis. In other words, you fail to give people good reason to think that your claim of audibility cannot reasonably be explained by something other than that it is (a) caused by cables or (b) is based on an actual physical phenomenon.

Ironically, other parts of your argument concede this very point, because you've already gone on at considerable length about some prospective blind test. To even suggest such a thing indicates at least some basic supposition that you need to falsify alternative explanations, such as that you are imagining it and would not notice the difference if you could not see the cables. Thus, to then retreat to an argument over whether science can touch a dualist conception of subjective experience is so fundamentally self-effacing I really don't understand the point of it.

Anyhow, I'm not going to pursue a mega post-off over this. You seem very committed to the discussion, and I appreciate that, but I honestly don't have the time or stamina to give such large posts the necessary level of attention. I hope this is understandable; I tried to at least be thorough in this response to you
In response to your post

1. I make no contradictions with regards to the observation of a phenomenon and the claim that science cannot disprove the phenomenon. I do not use science (though it may resemble science) to demonstrate that there exists a phenomenon such that I am able to discern among different cables. That is largely the point of illustrating my examples, it is to show that portion that allows others to realize that I am detecting something. While the demonstration does lend itself into a quasi scientific method (but there is no hypothesis or real experiment here) I'm simply using a repeatable test of the presence of such a phenomenon. As I state -there is no scientific claim in this demonstration of the existence of a phenomenon. This further negates your comments regarding a solipsistic view of my experience as a matter of truth rather than something that I must demonstrate. Through the demonstration and the proposed hypothetical test - I think I have clearly shown that the phenomenon is not merely true because I say it is, I demonstrate its existence. I make no scientific claims that it exists, I merely demonstrate it. Furthermore, my point is that science cannot disprove my claim of its existence should it be demonstrable.

2. You misunderstand what I state science cannot disprove, and have fallen into the trap that many others have. When people make claims that science or scientific methodology tells us that we cannot hear a difference in cables, what they are in fact telling you is that Science or scientific methodology is disproving your claim of observing a phenomenon. My entire argument is to show that science cannot do that and you even admit it. Now you state that this is irrelevant, I don't think it is. People are using the credibility and the name of science (although these methods of testing that people conduct are at best psuedo scientific due to reasons I outlined in another post regarding the instrument and specific phenomenon to be tested) to make claims that people cannot hear differences in cables -This is something that they cannot do. The true motive behind all of this. It is to end this quibbling with regards to someone saying "Oh but science tells you that you can't hear a difference in cables."

3. The existence of colorblindness was proven by science, but the observation of such a phenomenon (by the person who experienced color blindness) could not have been proven or disproven by science. At best a scientist would test to see if it was a demonstrable observation, and then performed tests to determine what phenomenon would result in such an odd observation. When people here "test" cables with DBT or whatever else you'd like to use, they are testing their observation, they can't do that. All that they can do is ask them to demonstrate their ability to distinguish between cables. Assuming they can, science has no alternative but to accept, barring in light of a repeatable demonstration, that the phenomenon must exist and must take this to be truth. Notice that the person demonstrating the existence of the phenomenon proves nothing with regards to cables or the physical characterstics. His burden is to simply show that his observations are repeatable, and a repeatable observation to ONE PERSON is not science and please do not misconstrue it as such.

4. Lastly realize that when people do DBT, they are in fact taking part in the lay-man's science (I don't know of a better way to word it, sorry). What they lack are the following
1. Testable Phenomenon:
-For something to truly follow the scientific method, you must test an observation. The problem with what people have done here in the forums is that they have already assumed people have this ability to distinguish between cables and they create this test set up (perhaps something similar to what I have described). Now ask yourself what are they testing? Are they testing the phenomenon that they assumed existed (by proceeding to conduct a DBT)? or are they in fact testing the perception of the phenomenon or perhaps even the existence of the phenomenon itself. See the issue is that people are doing the latter, they are not testing the phenomenon, they are testing the observation. So ultimately this test, while scientific in nature, lacks a testable observation -it is in fact putting the cart in front of the horse and testing the existence of the observation. As I have, through long lengths, tried to claim, is impossible because science cannot prove or disprove an observation. The only thing that can occur is that the person perceiving the observation is able to clearly demonstrate that they observe it and that it leads them to differentiate between the cables. There is nothing scientific in that, it is outside the realm of science to prove/disprove experiences.

2. Proper test equipment/test design
-All scientific tests begin with finding a phenomenon, and the issue here is that when people do DBT cable related tests, they are using people's ears to once again test the existence of the phenomenon. In all of these tests, there have been no specifically designed instruments for the purpose of determining what the phenomenon is, and how it comes about. Please note that there is a difference here, what the phenomenon is and the phenomenon's existence are two different questions. Although Science cannot work along the lines of proving the existence of the observation, it does have the ability (after the demonstration of the existence of an observation) to explain what it is and how it comes about. But the issue here is that there are no scientific equipments or testing methodologies to determine what this phenomenon is, there are only tests designed (and used by a majority of headfiers here) to determine the existence of the phenomenon. Can you make the statement that perhaps the right tool already exists? Yes of course, but so long as the testing methodology we have keeps on trying to do the wrong thing, what kind of result are you really getting?

3. Usable conclusions
-At this point, what can a DBT regarding cables do? What can you conclude after going through all this testing. Let us say that no one, not a one is able to distinguish between different cables. Do you then conclude that, wow the phenomenon does not exist. But wait a minute, did you not have to assume it existed to run the tests? Further more, don't we find ourselves with that issue that we are now once again trying to prove or disprove a person's experience using science? Here's the break down:
1. Either you are trying to prove or disprove a person's ability to hear differences between cables using NON-Science
or
2. In your attempt to test the phenomenon, you have use the wrong instrument, and inappropriate hypothesis?

At this point your conclusion is meaningless because it loses that quintissential nature that non-cable believers use to gain more credibility than the cable believers do -Science. Or you could also come to the conclusion that your scientific method, was faulty to begin with. So when you do DBT with regards to cable, ask yourself what are you really testing and are you testing something really scientific?

Now I know I've gotten criticisms from other members who are researchers and scientists, I ask you to evaluate what I have posted above carefully with regards to the scientific method or whatever method you use. And I ask you, is the current test for cables, a test for the existence of the phenomenon or a test of what the phenomenon is. And if it is a test for what the phenomenon is, then I ask is the current methodology acceptable?

Your dismissal of whatever goes on in this thread is acceptable, and if you no longer wish to reply, so be it. I cannot ask you to reply nor force you to do it. I can only flame you till you respond, but I won't flame.

============
In response to thepredator's comments:
Quote:
"Then I completely stand by more original statement that in such a hypothetical world where testing shows that people are able to discern the difference between cables, then science would of course show that there is a difference in cables and the entire burden of proof argument would be meaningless. It is a completely tautological statement because you are saying "if science shows x, then what would science show?"

The differentiation between a test of the phenomenon of hearing a cable and a test of physical differences between cables means little considering that nearly every single physical cable measurement is met with claims that the only way to test a cable is through experience (just look at any other thread and you will see posts along the lines of "you can't measure soundstage")."

As mentioned earlier and even in this same post, I do not use science to test the existence of a phenomenon. And you are in fact making the crucial mistake I have illustrated above with regards to the psuedo-non-scientific DBT with regards to cables. So, I'm afraid your understanding of "if science shows x, then what would science show?" Is in fact a characterization of the problem, and is a misrepresentation of what I am arguing. If I were to summarize my claim it would be: "I demonstrate that I can perceive this, why is science telling me I cannot perceive it"

Your second paragraph also indicates this misuse or the improper use of science. Because in your statement, people are once again testing the existence of something rather than testing that something to determine its properties or whatever other conclusions you can come up with based on your hypothesis or initial assumptions. The tests people currently use are flawed, and that is what has led to these countless threads with regards to DBT of cables and other cable related issues.
post #41 of 123
Thread Starter 
Edited the first post, it was my fault for creating the "scientific-demonstration" issue which led to thepredator's comments and the confusion of others. Please note that the demonstration is not scientific, it is merely a means of demonstrating the existence of a phenomenon.
post #42 of 123
Demonstrating a phenomenon is scientific in nature.... i.e. - If you can't demonstrate something scientifically (with repeatable, measurable results), then you haven't demonstrated it at all....

This argument:

"If I told you that people could fly like Superman, then would you let science tell you that people couldn't fly? Maybe science couldn't explain it yet, but it can't disprove my experience of flying!"

"Um... yeah, but... people can't fly"

"I'm not saying that people can or can't fly, I'm saying if people could fly then science wouldn't be able to say that people couldn't fly, right?"

"Um... riiiighhhtttt..."

"See, science can't tell you that people can't fly!"


Your basically building a broken hypothesis. "IF X then Y." But you can't demonstrate X. At least, no one has to date demonstrated X. Until X is demonstrated, then pursuing the "then" statement of the hypothesis is useless and flawed.
post #43 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
Read closer -

"Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy"

That is, if someone said "someone told me they heard differences in cables. cables must sound different. son, i am disappoint.", that would be misuse of anecdotal evidence, hence a logical fallacy. If someone said "I heard differences in these cables", that isn't a logical fallacy at all - it's simply anecdotal evidence. It may not count for much, and it doesn't prove anything, but it still counts for something.

More persuasive would be if there were a study of what percentage of audiophiles claim to hear differences in cables.
What, other than "I read members on this forum describe differences between cables" and "I have heard sighted differences between cables" is the evidence for the subjectivist side? I could understand where you're coming from if the anecdotes were only part of a larger argument that involved other forms of objective, repeatable, and documented empirical data, but there's literally only anecdotal evidence to back up their point, which is a misuse of anecdotal evidence.

Any time someone makes a claim and only has anecdotal evidence to back up that claim (but not only in these cases), that someone is misusing anecdotal evidence and has committed a logical fallacy. And while I do understand the distinction you make in your point and it is well taken, many people don't actually think like that. For example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
Don't most modern CD players meet have those S/N noise ratios and THD? In other words, don't virtually all of the CD players that people talk about, and compare, on the Dedicated Source Components meet these specs?

I know I have extensive experience with the Bel Canto DAC 2 and the Electrocompanient ECD-1. Both of those DAC's easily meet those specs. They do not sound alike. Any contention that they do is silly, IMO.
That is blatantly making a categorical claim (any argument that they sound the same is silly).

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonboy403 View Post
I find it impossible that any person with reasonable hearing capability cannot distinguish between the sound of the HD650 when driven single ended by a compass and driven balanced by the Phoenix. (blind tested or not)
I think it's safe to say that at least some subjectivists misuse anecdotal evidence.
post #44 of 123
1. When you make an argument that something exists, on the basis of observational evidence, this is an empirical exercise. The relevance of science here is no less than that it disciplines the exercise in such a way as to generate proof of theses. By stating that you do not conform your proof methodology to scientific standards, you are simply informing the reader that what follows is not proof at all and cannot be taken seriously as a 'demonstration' of the existence of a particular phenomenon, as characterised by yourself.

Yes, I understand that you are then trying to retreat to a characterisation of the phenomenon as something like the bare qualia associable with your experience. However, if you think that such an alternative characterisation is at all relevant, let alone dispositive of the issue at hand in a thread titled "the argument to end all cable wars", your conclusion defeats your own premise.

2. There is no trap to fall into. As noted above, yes, I get the distinction. My point is simply that such a distinction avails you of no protection against substantive criticisms of your proof methodology. In your dualist conception of subjective phenomenology, yes, I suppose science cannot in some limited sense conclusively "disprove" that you have the bare phenomenology that you have come to associate with cables. However, it can, as conclusively as really any other sort of empirical task, disprove your ascriptions of causality.

Attempting to retreat to an argument over the bare existence of the attendant qualia, while perhaps rhetorically effective on the matter of whether science may conclusively 'disprove' all phenomenological elements you associate with the use of cables, is nonetheless completely and utterly self-effacing in a thread titled "the argument to end all cable wars." In other words, to say that the proper characterisation of the argument is that scientific arguments in cable arguments are no use, because the bare subjective phenomenology is not conclusively disproveable, is to do nothing more than tell the reader that you do not offer, and do not intend to offer, any particularly good reason to believe that cables themselves have a causal relationship with your experience.

3. This is just a rehash of the prior point. Yes, I get the distinction but as I noted the ultimate inferences are lethal to your overall project.

4. The test methodology you loosely described is designed to evaluate the causal relationship between the experience you claim to have and its purported cause. It is, in essence, an effort to isolate variables as to conclusively establish whether the cause is the cables themselves, but creating an experimental environment in which alternative theses fail to conform to the evidence.

It is not is a test of whether you are lying or mistaken about your subjectivity. That is completely irrelevant to anyone who is concerned about whether cables have any impact on sound. The only thing that is relevant is whether there is a causal relationship, because the absence of proof of a causal relationship means that one may not reasonably expect cables to make any difference to the sound they experience.

This is ultimately why insisting to me that this discussion is over the existence of 'the phenomenon', characterised as the bare qualia you have come to associate with cables, resolutely defeats your overall project. If this is all you wished to tell us about, then you've really not told us much of anything at all. It is simply uninteresting and irrelevant, to someone concerned about whether cables are causally inert vis-a-vis audible output, that you have some experience for which you cannot and will not conform your proof methodology to means adequate to prove causation.
post #45 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjisme View Post
Science doesn't insist that he doesn't hear it. It seeks to explain it.
Possibly the two most important statements ever on the role of science.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The argument to end all cable wars