[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif facepalm.jpg The challenge was for Pear, not Fremer.

True, but Fremer wants to take it forward and Randi wants to kill it.

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quite frankly, I wouldn't believe anything on the Pear site after the way that fella behaved. See ya Steve

Listen, I'll call chickens**t on Pear just as much as you guys will, but the truth is, from a business standpoint, they should have never even entertained this crackpot. Granted, I'm not a businessman, I've got ethics, and from this point Pear wimped out... but if I were running a business, which is what they are doing, I wouldn't have anything to do with it. It's lose-lose for them. Randi wins, they're humiliated, Randi loses, the anti-cable people find some way to trash Randi. Come on, we've all been on this topic long enough to know that they wouldn't accept a win as proof of anything.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Listen, I'll call chickens**t on Pear just as much as you guys will, but the truth is, from a business standpoint, they should have never even entertained this crackpot. Granted, I'm not a businessman, I've got ethics, and from this point Pear wimped out... but if I were running a business, which is what they are doing, I wouldn't have anything to do with it. It's lose-lose for them. Randi wins, they're humiliated, Randi loses, the anti-cable people find some way to trash Randi. Come on, we've all been on this topic long enough to know that they wouldn't accept a win as proof of anything.

You are extrapolating from your attitude to ours.
Why should listeners with a rational approach not accept the (unexpected) result of a proper scientific experiment?
Seems you don't know much about science and the proponents of a scientific approach.
The point is that up to now your irrational camp hasn't passed a single DBT and therefor there's absolutely zero evidence for your claims.(Correct me if I'm wrong.I do have access to an university library and this way to any scientific paper ever published).

Personally I can easily get along with subjectivists in a friendly manner.This is a hobby and meant to be fun and no pitbull fight or pissing contest.
About twice a year I do visit head-fi member RichterDi and we always do have lots of fun despite of his quite different taste and approach.
Most of his headphones are recabled, there are some aftermarket PCs and expensive ICs and he does believe in the beneficial effect of a CD demagnetizer and so on.We always laugh about my sceptical facial expression when I look at this demagnetizer gizmo.

What he doesn't do and what I can't stand anymore is claiming "night and day" differences.Those huge differences would mean you could easily pass a DBT with a 100% result and you obviously can't.
Talking someone who doesn't like the basic sonic signature of particular headphones into purchasing expensive cables in order to fix it is misleading nonsense.Unfortunately this is quite common here nowadays.

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma /img/forum/go_quote.gif Seems you don't know much about science and the proponents of a scientific approach.

Yeah, I guess graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a Bachelor of, oh what was that, oh yeah, Science doesn't give me any knowledge of the scientific method. Participating in real, university sanctioned experiments apparently means nothing either.

As opposed to you, who thinks that the purpose of the scientific method is to solve pissing matches on the internet. It's funny how every time a skeptic disagrees with anything, they start screaming "Science, science!!!" without knowing jack s**t about what science entails. There is nothing, let me repeat, NOTHING in the scientific method that says one side can scream "Science" at the other and at the same time claim that they have no duty to proove anything. This "It's only your side who has the responsibility to prove this" idea is Wikipedia science.

Duh.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, I guess graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a Bachelor of, oh what was that, oh yeah, Science doesn't give me any knowledge of the scientific method.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Do you think that a science degree somehow immunizes you from logical fallacies and faulty reasoning? Your scientific pedigree certainly has not appeared to be on display very much throughout the course of these cable discussions. I'm not saying that it needs to, but you sure do seem to want to have it both ways arguing as you have been and then throwing your degree around as though it alone somehow makes your theories more credible.

Like it or not, cosmopragma makes a good point about how people tend to make exaggerated claims about the differences they hear with even the slightest, most inconsequential of changes to their systems. It makes it very hard for people to get an honest picture of what is going on. Speaking for myself, I pretty much ignore anyone who uses the phrases "blown away by the improvements" or "it made a night and day difference." The problem with such drivel is that it fails to provide a meaningful frame of reference for the people reading this stuff.

--Jerome

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Do you think that a science degree somehow immunizes you from logical fallacies and faulty reasoning? Your scientific pedigree certainly has not appeared to be on display very much throughout the course of these cable discussions. I'm not saying that it needs to, but you sure do seem to want to have it both ways arguing as you have been and then throwing your degree around as though it alone somehow makes your theories more credible. Like it or not, cosmopragma makes a good point about how people tend to make exaggerated claims about the differences they hear with even the slightest, most inconsequential of changes to their systems. It makes it very hard for people to get an honest picture of what is going on. Speaking for myself, I pretty much ignore anyone who uses the phrases "blown away by the improvements" or "it made a night and day difference." The problem with such drivel is that it fails to provide a meaningful frame of reference for the people reading this stuff. --Jerome

My (extremely obvious) point was that 90% of the people around here who yell "scientific method" know nothing of what they speak because they have never had any first hand experience with it. Their version of science is what they pull off of wikipedia and is so far flung from the real scientific method that it's laughable. They've confused "magician" with "scientist"

.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My (extremely obvious) point was that 90% of the people around here who yell "scientific method" know nothing of what they speak because they have never had any first hand experience with it. Their version of science is what they pull off of wikipedia and is so far flung from the real scientific method that it's laughable. They've confused "magician" with "scientist" .

Really, my impression was that we are a relatively well educated bunch, we have several academics, researchers, doctors and a decent number of PhDs onboard. We have loads of people with formal training in EE and related disciplines.

Perhaps you can describe what you mean by Scientific Method that is at odds with the folks you take issue with.

 

[rhythmdevils]

interesting! would someone post when the test is done? i can't read through this whole thing

 

[Agnostic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My (extremely obvious) point was that 90% of the people around here who yell "scientific method" know nothing of what they speak because they have never had any first hand experience with it. Their version of science is what they pull off of wikipedia and is so far flung from the real scientific method that it's laughable. They've confused "magician" with "scientist" .

Yes, obviously there are two versions of scientific method:

1. Yours, the "real one", which exactly like cables has to be "personally experienced" to be understood.
2. The one the rest of the people here have been refering to, of which you can probably find a short but reasonably accurate description in the Wikipedia and many more elaborate and accurate descriptions in any introduction to the Philosophy of Science.


Of course the first version is neither scientific nor methodical.
The second version of scientific method can be criticized and some people have quite succesfully done so (see Feyerabend for instance).

And once more you have resorted to ad hominem argumentation. The fact that you're a former magician does not in any way make it impossible to follow scientific method. Surprising isn't it?

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps you can describe what you mean by Scientific Method that is at odds with the folks you take issue with.

For one, there's the "Nuh-uh, I don't have to prove it doesn't happen, you have to prove it does..." BS that floats around here, as if science inherently sides with skeptics. Anyone who has ever been involved in an actual scientific experiment (which I have) knows that you do everything possible to prove your point, you don't pass the buck to the people who think you're wrong. It's a cop-out, pure and simple. Say, for example, it's the mid 80s, and a scientist dealing with AIDS panic says, "Kissing somone will not spread AIDS... but I don't have to prove that, you have to prove that it does!" They would be laughed out of their profession.

Also, the phrase "This stuff has been established for 50 years, it's not going to change." Science is constantly morphing, it is not (as the wikiscientists claim) something forever set in stone. The last generation's science is less advanced than this generation's science, and only a temperocentrist would believe that the same pattern won't hold to the next generation.

Then there is the most flagrant part, the rampant idea that observation is a completely optional part of the scientific process ("I don't need to hear it to know...").

My problem is people using the word "science" when they have no idea of the extremely rigorous standards that it entails. It might pass on Oprah, but it doesn't pass with me.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif For one, there's the "Nuh-uh, I don't have to prove it doesn't happen, you have to prove it does..." BS that floats around here, as if science inherently sides with skeptics.

Have you heard of the "Burden of Proof"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

Obviously you have not participated in the scientific method as much as you thought. I'd say someone that says $13,000 power cables and cd demagnetizers work would be the one making the bold claims, no?

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Have you heard of the "Burden of Proof"?

Um, thanks for proving my point with your, um, wikipedia quote

.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Um, thanks for proving my point with your, um, wikipedia quote .

Wikipedia is a terrible source, but I just wanted to link to a definition quickly. You have yet to actually say why the burden of proof isn't on you.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Um, thanks for proving my point with your, um, wikipedia quote .

So let me get this straight:

Your premise is that people who quote wikipedia are incapable of understanding the scientific method. Xenu quotes wikipedia. Therefore, Xenu is incapable of understanding the scientific method.

Surely someone with your training should understand the shortcomings of this type of "logic."

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif So let me get this straight: Your premise is that people who quote wikipedia are incapable of understanding the scientific method. Xenu quotes wikipedia. Therefore, Xenu is incapable of understanding the scientific method. Surely someone with your training should understand the shortcomings of this type of "logic."

No, what I'm saying is that I wouldn't recommend using someone who's only checked out engine schematics on wiki as your mechanic.

If I said "I am too a sound engineer, I read wikipedia" you'd justifiably laugh at me. All I'm saying is that there is a lot more to the scientific method than what you would expect if you used Head-Fi wisdom as your measurement; most (not all) people's understanding of the scientific method here is vague at best, as they are quoting a malleable website. I like wikipedia, it serves its purpose, but it is the single most unscientific source I can think of.