or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Wining about the placebo effect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wining about the placebo effect - Page 5

post #61 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

Dude: you certainly did say  The perception of sound is a phenomenological event that presents itself to our consciousness awareness. 
And for this reason alone people should throw stuff at you until you stop. It's for your own good! People hear things!

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)

People can have phenomenological experiences independently of physical phenomenons and vice versa.

 

Learn to read: 

 

The perception of sound is a phenomenological event that presents itself to our consciousness awareness. 

 

..i.e. said independence is precluded by the totality of this awful, awful monstrousity of a sentence. Yes, reading a 14 word sentence all the way through is hard!


I think what you had in mind was "phenomenally".

 

It's nice that you know so many long words. But no, that you hold this belief is because you haven't learned to read full sentences and so do not understand why the use of "phenomenological" was redundant, obscurantist and pretentious in context. 

 

 

Study English and philosophy. wink.gif

 

I think you would do better to master the meaning of an honest full stop and its role in sentence structure before attempting the use of emoticons...

Edited by scuttle - 2/18/13 at 4:12am
post #62 of 105
I don't know what's the point of this anymore... it's not like JadeEast even represents a position I would want to defend overall. Just thought the clown actually had a point with that sentence somewhere. But tell me, which part of a simple imperative sentence don't you understand?

I guess reading all this on a phone counts as half an excuse redface.gif
post #63 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I don't know what's the point of this anymore... 

 

I don't think that you had one, other than to show that you know two words beginning with "phenom"....

 

But my point is that you cannot arbitrarily dismiss ABX tests you don't like because of vague bs that "Everything is influenced by context." If you want to show a test is invalid you have to show that their was a context - eg poor volume matching - that would reasonably throw off the test results. As opposed to "There is such a thing as an optical illusion, therefore no ABX test can be valid!!!"


Edited by scuttle - 2/18/13 at 4:55am
post #64 of 105
I think the subjectivists hold a technically undefeatable argument-- it is always *possible* that blinding the test changes things in a manner that renders the subject unable to distinguish differences he otherwise could. Unfortunately the alternative (sighted testing) is by definition stuck with the absolutely confounding factor called knowing the answer. We will never know for sure, just like that quantum scientific law that by observing something you change something in unobservable ways. But do I care about differences so small you can't ABX? Hell no.
post #65 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I think the subjectivists hold a technically undefeatable argument-- it is always *possible* that blinding the test changes things in a manner that renders the subject unable to distinguish differences he otherwise could.

 

If their argument reduces to the emperor's new clothes-esqu "nothing is like my private listening room! I can detect everything there!" then reason is lost.

 

 

 

If that is the case, excellent. "Subjectivists" are buying sizzle, not steak.

 

Next step: package and sell sizzle.

post #66 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I think the subjectivists hold a technically undefeatable argument-- it is always *possible* that blinding the test changes things in a manner that renders the subject unable to distinguish differences he otherwise could. Unfortunately the alternative (sighted testing) is by definition stuck with the absolutely confounding factor called knowing the answer. We will never know for sure, just like that quantum scientific law that by observing something you change something in unobservable ways. But do I care about differences so small you can't ABX? Hell no.

You can turn this around: I think that objectivists hold a technically undefeatable argument -- it is always *possible* that not blinding the test changes things in a manner that render the subject's senses distorted.

So that's completely pointless.. There's also a possibility that the speed of light changes, so is that an "undefeatable argument" that the speed of light is not constant?!

 

 

Btw, "undefeatable argument" makes me cringe.


Edited by xnor - 2/18/13 at 5:39am
post #67 of 105
The word I was actually looking for was "undecidable", such as how Collatz's conjecture is said to be proven mathematically undecidable. And yeah, if you can't disprove a conjecture, you certainly can't prove it...
post #68 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I think the subjectivists hold a technically undefeatable [undecidable] argument-- it is always *possible* that blinding the test changes things in a manner that renders the subject unable to distinguish differences he otherwise could. Unfortunately the alternative (sighted testing) is by definition stuck with the absolutely confounding factor called knowing the answer. We will never know for sure, just like that quantum scientific law that by observing something you change something in unobservable ways. But do I care about differences so small you can't ABX? Hell no.

 

Regardless of the correct word to express whatever unknowability or uncertainty there, this is mostly how I feel.  Heisenburg uncertainty principle?  Do peoples' ability to distinguish things change under different circumstances?  (under really bad circumstances, obviously yes, but under slightly altered circumstances?)  By how much?  I mean, this isn't as easy as some of the other examples of absurd "what ifs" being thrown out there.  

 

Are you interested in differences that can't be detected by people trying really hard under all sorts of good circumstances for a well-run ABX or similar blind test, when they often claim that there are large differences prior to blinding, where small changes in headphone / IEM placement or pads / sleeves on the head makes a larger difference anyway?  If somebody else is, good for them.

post #69 of 105

Since my sentence seems to continue to be at issue here, I'd like to point out that I was replying directly to this:

If I throw a brick at your head, the impact will be the same whether I tell you it is a feather or a kryptonite ingot.

 
With this:
The brick at my head impact is a physical event. The perception of sound is a phenomenological event that presents itself to our consciousness awareness. 
 
The discussion (at this point) was about perception, placebo, and blind tests. A brick thrown is nothing like the perception of sound.
In a discussion of the placebo effect and perception using the example of the brick is wrong. 

Edited by JadeEast - 2/18/13 at 9:24am
post #70 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

Since my sentence seems to continue to be at issue here, I'd like to point out that I was replying directly to this:

If I throw a brick at your head, the impact will be the same whether I tell you it is a feather or a kryptonite ingot.

 
With this:
The brick at my head impact is a physical event. The perception of sound is a phenomenological event that presents itself to our consciousness awareness. 
 
The discussion (at this point) was about perception, placebo, and blind tests. A brick thrown is nothing like the perception of sound.
In a discussion of the placebo effect and perception using the example of the brick is wrong. 

Yes, but don't you now feel like you've been hit in the head with a thrown brick?  deadhorse.gif

post #71 of 105

I'm not sure. How do you propose we measure "feeling like" being hit by a brick?

Are you are arguing against a person's belief affecting perception?


Edited by JadeEast - 2/18/13 at 2:30pm
post #72 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

I'm not sure. How do you propose we measure "feeling like" being hit by a brick?

Are you are arguing against a person's belief affecting perception?

 

I cant figure how that applies to placebo,

 

since the term is a methaphoric term used to explain a sensory overload anyway,

i would presume that would apply to placebo if a song was too much it could impair judgement.

 

otherwise brick is blunt force trauma its not likely to have any equivalents in the sound without considering high amounts of bass in a bind test scenario.

post #73 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

I'm not sure. How do you propose we measure "feeling like" being hit by a brick?
Are you are arguing against a person's belief affecting perception?

I'm not suggesting we measure brricks or being hit by them.

I would never argue against belief affecting perception, and in this case I'm not arguing at all.

Just trying to convey a bit of sympathy in a humorous way, in light of what seems an unnecessarily brutal exchange.
post #74 of 105

Thanks for the clarification. 

 beerchug.gif

post #75 of 105

I'm a scientist, and do appreciate Husserl and Merleau-Ponty wink_face.gif but am a bit dismayed by the rudeness in this forum.  It really gives us empirical types a bad reputation in head-fi.  My apologies.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Wining about the placebo effect