Questions of Science and Progress? - Page 3

 

Scientism, far from any negative connotations, is the preferred method of determining truth. Whatever one's beliefs are on metaphysical matters, there is an overlap where knowledge can be said to be verifiably true. I don't think that there are many (any?) instances in head-fi discussion of the science of audio where one absolutely has to go into philosophy to determine the truth.

 

We need to respect the limitations of scientific investigation, but come on, we don't need to invoke mystical explanations for why one person hears something differently from another.

 

No.

I don't even know where to start... just no.

 

Pulling quantum physics into this isn't really applicable to anything I said. The current electrical models can be worked with without invoking quantum physics. Simply pointing to a complex area of science and using it to imply that other, more basic, but seemingly accurate scientific models are hence undermined doesn't make any sense. I know that quantum physics technically underpins everything, but that still doesn't undermine existing electrical theory, which so far has demonstrated itself to be rather predictable. Not entirely sure where you're going with the God example - if you find a way of quantifying God's subtle influence do let me know...

 

As for science and cables, I have read a lot of the stuff on the Cardas site. Rather like the stuff on the Audioquest or other cable vendor's "science" section it is a careful misrepresentation of largely nonexistent issues; a careful mix of scientific principles which are technically in effect, but totally irrelevant in the same way 0.0000005% THD is totally irrelevant - and other stuff which is simply crap. I'm hardly alone when I say that, according to scientific practise, there is absolutely no reason to buy more expensive analog cables. Various people have written incredibly eloquent and complex rebuttals refuting the claims of cable companies who insist that they design by "science," but I'm not sure why they bother - it's just publicity material designed to look as scientific as possible. It doesn't hold up to the most basic attempt at investigation.

 

Eddy currents, resonance - none of it is applicable to audio frequencies to any appreciable extent. It's rather like AudioQuest going on about skin effect - which simply isn't applicable at audio frequencies - technically it occurs, but not in any way that is within a thousand miles of being audible - it makes inaudible differences between pieces of equipment look positively gigantic in comparison.Mr Cardas, unsurprisingly considering his position in a cable company, is talking rubbish, at least as far as anything remotely, conceivably audible is concerned.

 

There is absolutely no current scientific basis as to why cables work. That much is not debatable. From there, we simply have to look at the cable "objection" to current scientific theory and wait for the cable believers to present any objection beyond "Cables work because science is wrong and so there." The scientific "burden of proof" rests solely upon them - as they have yet to even attempt to satisfy it I can get my teapot and razor out when debunking their ideas. Quantum physics doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

EDIT: The person below me has emphasised how quantum physics has nothing to do with it rather more concisely, if not as politely!

 

 

Edited by Willakan - 9/16/11 at 2:38am

 

Quantum mysticism: take any rational field of study where the fine details are not yet understood, claim that these details must remain indeterminate because of probabilistic quantum events out there and that reality abides by a subjective observer. E.g. "Orch-OR" -- brilliant bullcrap

I can't work out at all where you got this idea from. The history and very foundations of modern science is based on questioning observation and perception. The sun and stars were observed to rotate around the earth and the perception was that the earth was the centre of the universe.

Also, you seem to be confusing science with scientists. Scientists are human beings and as such have biases, fallibilities and sometimes agendas, that's why we have developed elaborate procedures of DBT, repeatability, peer reviewing, etc., to try and minimise the effects of bias and human error. One of the great strengths of science (particularly when compared to religion) is the ability to question both observation and science itself. If this were not true, the law of gravity would never have been questioned, the constancy of time would never have been questioned and Einstein would never have been anything other than a patent clerk. In fact, it was Einstein's extraordinary ability to question perception, observations and beliefs which made him the most famous scientist in history!

Another of the strengths of science (again compared to religion) is it's ability to say "We don't yet know". Perception of sound is a studied area, there is even a branch of science devoted specifically to it but currently "we don't yet know" the exact process of say the perception of music. Science does not attempt to say a perception does not exist, it attempts to understand how and why perception exists, to compare perception with objective measurements to test perceptions' validity and provide some useful predictions of perception. One of science's predictions is that absolute certainty is a human perception rather than a reality. Science is largely based on statistical probabilities. Although this may not satisfy a human desire for absolute truth or certainty it does give us a better understanding of the universe around us. Science predicts that electrons can suddenly vanish off to infinity but science also accurately predicts the vanishingly small probability of that happening to an enormous number of electrons simultaneously. That enables us to safely say (without absolute certainty) that your computer won't suddenly switch off due to the electrical current failing when all the electrons decide to go on vacation to infinity together! Can we be absolutely certain this won't happen, no but that doesn't stop us from a level of certainty which is accurate enough for all practical purposes.

So when an audiophile perceives differences in cables (whose differences measure significantly lower than human physical limitations) we can say with an exceedingly high level of certainty their perception is an illusion.

I find it interesting that cable believers seem unable to question their own perception and ultimately (with the help of some pseudo scientific marketing hype) arrive at an irrational belief. To justify this (irrational) belief cable believers ultimately have to arrive at the conclusion that the whole of science must be wrong or at the very least that it must be missing something. The science of sound waves and the mechanics of the ear have been very well understood (with very high certainty) for decades. The only part of science which is missing is certainty of the "how and why" the cable believer is perceiving something which they cannot hear. The best explanation science can provide (with reasonable certainty) is the "Placebo Effect". And, as yet, science has an inadequate explanation (with a relatively little certainty) as to why cable believers are unable to question their perception and arrive at an irrational belief.

G
Edited by gregorio - 9/16/11 at 2:55am

 

The majority of audiophile "belief" is based on an phenomenally irrational and in some ways incredibly arrogant failure of the audiophile to admit that his senses are not infallible. When they start from such a bizarre position, it's no wonder their conclusion stretch credulity.

 

 

@pdp

Dark Matter/Energy as a unit in quantum/cosmological theories is a lot like a Thevenin block in an electrical circuit.  It is an equivalent unit with defined (mostly) properties and a pretty well-understood mathematical representation.  We aren't saying that is reality; just that there is a hole in our current understanding of reality and this model (dark matter, for example) fills in the gap so to speak.

 

The theory of magnetism is the closest one that I can think of that comes close to being applicable in an "audio setting."  Again, we don't have an exact understanding of why magnetism occurs (is it domain theory... or what?).  However, we know precisely what magnetism does in terms of an electrical signal, how it's field diminishes over a set distance, etc.  So, we have a mathematical understanding which masks our rather poor physical understanding and "fills in the gap," allowing us to utilize magnetism as a physical property, even though we don't know exactly what is going on physically.  Magnetism is a great example, since it is so commonplace and many people have seen it's effects directly.  Most are surprised to learn that magnetism is still a theory; this is in complete disagreement with the common understanding of science that theories are an incomplete and unproven truth.

 

This is one major difference between physics and other more "biological" sciences.  If, say a neuroscientist, were to discover a repeatable phenomenon in the brain (glial cell migration would be one example), there isn't necessarily a mathematical model that could represent what is occurring, and a further understanding of what is going on "stops" until the physical reason has been revealed.  The mathematics involved are either too complex or not well understood.  Or the stochastic properties of the math aren't good enough to give us a justifiable confidence in their results, therefore we learn nothing from it without an appropriate physical model.  Physics, in general, doesn't have that problem.  Mathematical models explain a good number of things out there; with appropriate measurements to back those models up.  We aren't reliant upon a physical explanation, and therefore can go "deeper" in an understanding of what is going on.

 

You could make the argument that since there is only a mathematical "fit" applied, that nothing has been learned.  Take a basic example as a counterpoint to that: D=RT (distance equals rate * time; basic newtonian-style kinematic equation that everyone learns).  There isn't really a better physical explanation than the math one: if you want to travel a certain distance and get there in a certain time, you have to go this (R) fast.  Sure, understanding things physically can tell you about possible exceptions to the rule (quantum mechanics and relativistic physics would have a field day here), but that physical understanding is an enhancement to the mathematical model, not a factor which soundly refutes it.

 

Lastly, thanks for an actually intellectual (for a change) discussion!