Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 101

post #1501 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

That's a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative.

If I have the right key then I can unlock the door.

If P then Q. 

I can't unlock the door, therefore I don't have the right key.

Not Q then Not P.

 

*Edit. Ha, I haven't proven a negative here have I!

 

On further reflection I can see a bit of my issue here...

"You can't prove a negative" looks like it's a self-refuting statement.

 

Did I read the post wrong? Did it mean that "you can't prove a negative" itself is a fallacy?


Edited by JadeEast - 10/18/12 at 9:47am
post #1502 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

One more response. I use measurements almost daily. I know their value and if you're going to call me ignorant for having a different opinion than yours, I would think it safe to assume that you're zealous. Saying to keep a more open mind is not calling you a close minded know it all unless you've got rabbit ears. How else to say that I feel the scope if greater than just measurement? You can't take every point of disagreement as an insult while throwing actual ones about off hand and not expect a response.

 

I do blind compare all the time when comparing lossless encoders, cables, A2Ds etc. because I'm not a true subjectivist. I need repeatability. I know my way around a circuit board as well. I don't understand why more aren't more aware of differences and wont take the path of speculation on a message board. I just wanted to point out that I have a different view so that newbies have another perspective than simply the one that gets pounded whenever this discussion crops up.

 

Could you please share the results and details of these studies? Seeing as they would contradict all the other studies, you would be providing a very interesting perspective on this issue given you performed these tests correctly.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

If I have the right key then I can unlock the door.

If P then Q. 

I can't unlock the door, therefore I don't have the right key.

Not Q then Not P.

 

There are problems with this.


Have you tried absolutely all possible methods of unlocking this door? There are an infinite number of possibilities. Telepathic communication, certain patterns of knocking that trigger internal mechanisms, re-assembling a key broken up into microscopic particles contained within your body etc... There are too many variables, the proof that you don't have the right key is not concrete. What is really proven here is that there is a lack of proof that you have the right key, not that there is zero chance of you having the right key.

 

 

And a more accurate analogy would be trying to prove that the right key doesn't exist.

post #1503 of 2956
Quote:

Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

 

I know their value and if you're going to call me ignorant for having a different opinion than yours, I would think it safe to assume that you're zealous.

I don't need to re-quote what you wrote, do I? I don't/didn't call you that for having a different opinion.

 

Quote:
Saying to keep a more open mind is not calling you a close minded know it all unless you've got rabbit ears.

See #1475.

 

Quote:
How else to say that I feel the scope if greater than just measurement? You can't take every point of disagreement as an insult while throwing actual ones about off hand and not expect a response.

Why are you so fixated on measurements? Have you seen the first page? There's a lot of listening tests.

 

And did you look up null difference testing and the Carver challenge as suggested two pages back?

 

Quote:

I do blind compare all the time when comparing lossless encoders, [...]

Good luck with that. :S

 

Quote:
I don't understand why more aren't more aware of differences and wont take the path of speculation on a message board.

Probably because many of those differences are of imaginary nature? That's why we do listening tests in the first place, to separate the real from biased, imagined stuff.

post #1504 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Isn't that what I just said? You guys just can't get your heads around that to the point of arguing against yourselves to try and make your case.

Try wrapping your head around this statement....

I believe in leprechauns! Many people have reported seeing them and there has never been a scientific study that proves they don't exist.
post #1505 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I've passed double blinds given by 3rd parties on systems of my choosing

Wonderful! Now we're talking actual proof! Just fill us in on the test, who conducted it and where we can find the published results and we'll all be agreeing about your ability to hear these things instead of arguing!

You really did participate in controlled tests conducted by third parties, right?

Thanks in advance for the details!
post #1506 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

One more response. I use measurements almost daily

You mentioned that you are a professional in the sound business. What do you do, if I may ask? I'd be happy to tell you about what I do.
post #1507 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

I can't unlock the door, therefore I don't have the right key.

There's no negative there. The right key still may or may not exist.

This door needs a key to open. None of my keys open it. It's impossible to open this door.
post #1508 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

On further reflection I can see a bit of my issue here...

"You can't prove a negative" looks like it's a self-refuting statement.

It certainly looks like it. I've tried to find a way to rephrase it in a way to show that it's not actually trying to prove a negative, but I have only succeeded in confusing myself. Maybe someone can help me out here, as this is text book stuff so there probably is an explanation why it isn't self-refuting.

post #1509 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

It certainly looks like it. I've tried to find a way to rephrase it in a way to show that it's not actually trying to prove a negative, but I have only succeeded in confusing myself. Maybe someone can help me out here, as this is text book stuff so there probably is an explanation why it isn't self-refuting.


Without evidence to the contrary, you cannot prove that something does not exist (the negative).

 

A: "I made myself levitate today during meditation."

B: "Bulls&*%. People don't have that ability."

A: "You weren't there, so you can't prove that it didn't happen."

B: "Leave me alone."

post #1510 of 2956

@bigshot. The negative is in the truth value of possessing the key-  not in the existence of the key. 


Edited by JadeEast - 10/18/12 at 10:50am
post #1511 of 2956

The statement still seems like it is trying to prove the non-existance of something, that something being the existance of proofs of a negative.

 

I mean I fully believe in the statement, as there don't seem to be any situations that it isn't true in, but I am just confused by semantics right now.

 

I guess I see it as it is trying to prove that the following type of statement IS true: "You cannot prove the non-existance of x"

And that this statement is false: " You can prove the non-existance of x"
 

So given that, "You cannot prove the non existance of anything" falls in line with what it is trying to be prove true.

post #1512 of 2956
I think it's not a negative unless you're saying something doesn't exist, but I'll leave it to you philosophers to figure out for me.
post #1513 of 2956

If I may quote Bill Clinton, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."
 

post #1514 of 2956

The people that make the claims/assertions that A sounds different from B are the ones that need to supply the evidence, not the others. Shifting the burden of proof is also a kind of a logical fallacy.


Edited by xnor - 10/18/12 at 11:15am
post #1515 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

It certainly looks like it. I've tried to find a way to rephrase it in a way to show that it's not actually trying to prove a negative, but I have only succeeded in confusing myself. Maybe someone can help me out here, as this is text book stuff so there probably is an explanation why it isn't self-refuting.

As originally stated "you can't prove a negative."

 

Any positive assertion can be made into a negative, it's how language and logic works.

I like cheese; I don't like cheese. Unicorns exist; unicorns don't exist. This is true; this is not true. This is false; this is not false. The key exists; the key doesn't exist. 1;0

 

The assertion "can prove" is made a negative assertion by making it "can't prove." 

For the statement to be proven true would require that a negative (can't prove) be true. Logically, this is incoherent. If true it falsifies itself.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths