|I know you understand the analogy but are choosing to deliberately misunderstand.
I'm doing nothing of the sort, ooh. I'm actually striving pretty hard to play fair here, when this subject has absolutely nothing to stand on to be honest with you.
You're trying to claim something to the effect of "If he says it sounded better with the tape, then the tape made it sound better."
I'm reminding you that the tape did nothing (or, since I'm playing fair, that I believe the tape did nothing and am willing to prove it).
In logic, there is an axiom that states something to the effect of "that which can explain anything, explains nothing". It means that if I claim there is a dragon in my garage and you don't see him when I take you to look, I can't explain that away by saying "you can't see him if he doesn't want you to see him". Since I can apply that to anything at all ("you can't detect his fiery breath with infrared if he doesn't want you to be able to", etc), then it is not a valid explanation. Period.
This applies to this situation because saying "if Pinky thought it sounded better, then it did" could be applied to ANY claim anyone wanted to make about a product/treatment/whathaveyou.
If someone wants to claim they simply had a groovier time listening to music after <insert product/treatment here>, then we can all roll our eyes and accept it. If, however, they want to say they thought the music sounded better because of <insert product/treatment here>, they should be willing to back it up because music sounding better is detectable and testable
, and I'm not talking about "what really constitutes 'better'", I'm talking about them being able to tell a tester which copy of the cd they're listening to.
removed- edit2 explains it more clearly.
|No, but they did claim that it was more enjoyable with their gf (gf = tape, if you hadn't noticed) and I can bet you that they noticed a bunch more details in the movie than they didn't before. Those details were there just the same in both cases.
The point is that there were other reasons
the details were noticed. If his girlfriend's presence made him, say, more attentive (so he noticed more about the movie), then it was the attentiveness
, not the girlfriend, that made the difference. The correct claim, then, would be that attentiveness makes a movie more enjoyable, NOT that girlfriends make movies more enjoyable.
And, again, if all we're talking about is that he "was in a better place during the movie", or something equally useless to the rest of us, then we just roll our eyes and say good for him.