Quote:
Here's a thought, there may be more at work in cables or materials that known science can account for--so it would be illogical to conclude that our measurements are the end-all be-all of audio or physics.
It would be illogical, but the assumption is not that there are more than the basic things (eg. resistance, capacitance etc..) in cables, rather the assumption that most take is that cables are composed of just those basic things (resistance, capacitance etc...) and therefore people make the logical conclusion that the cables do not sound differently.
The difficulty lies not with the conclusion but rather the assumption. Induction tells us to assume that there is nothing different in specialty cables because it is composed of the same set of parameters (R.L.C etc..) but the black swan story (not the movie) should caution us to the use of induction as means of proof and consequently a source for truth.
Neither side of the debate is illogical, its simply that they are starting on different grounds. Until they can stand on the same plateau, I'm afraid there will always be an endless debate. But understand that it stems from the assumptions they make, not their conclusions thereafter. And if anyone here, or anywhere else for that matter, can make arguments/prove that one assumption is better than the other without calling upon other questionable assumptions or arguments but rather Truth itself, well then I should like to hear it and I would like to think so would countless other individuals.
As far as the Randi Test goes, I think that it was fairly disappointing to see it diffuse that way. But I'm quite certain that the whole event (leading up to the test and the subsequent fall out), probably lined both party's coffers. I can't help but think the snake oilers made quite a bit of money by stating, they were willing but the scientists were not. And I'm certain that the snake skinners made believers and profits from stating that, TPA is full of it (oddly the winner in this case would be Monster Cables). Either way I'm certain that the sales would probably exceed the $1 Million dollar price if you tallied up the change on both sides.
In so far as doing the test without the $1 Million, I'm not sure its worth it at all. People are motivated by rewards (first assumptions of economics), and the $1 Million dollar prize may be more representative than monetary and actually makes it fair game for the snake oiler to participate. Without the prize, what does he win? He wins the praise of the people at the judgement and he gets a pat on the back. What did he risk? His business and livelihood, his reputation. On the other hand the Snake Skinner wagers but a mere few moments of his time. And on the off chance he loses, what does he really lose? Nothing. Even if the snake oiler is able to discern even the smallest purity of silver in a piece of wire through some audible squeak, the Snake Skinner can easily say, it was by chance, or "so my man, you are one in a million," and yes stories will spread but the spread will be very meek, a few friends here and there, maybe in these forums.
Now, add $1 Million dollars into the mix and what do you get? The Snake Oiler is on national TV, but for him the stakes are the same. If he loses, he loses his reputation, his business and livelihood (no different as before). But if he were to win, what changes for him? The drastic change is not in the $1 Million dollars (although it can be argued that $0.5 Million is a nice little pay day), but rather it is in the risk of the Snake Skinner. Because of the notoriety that $1 Million dollars brings, the Snake Skinner can no longer brush off the loss as "He was just one in a million." And in this case, it is also the Snake Skinner's reputation at stake.
In the first case, a man would need to be a fool to take those odds (I'd sooner bet my life savings on green at a roulette table). But in the second game, both men are on even ground and have everything at stake. Once again its amusing to me that the party that claims to be for truth and honesty are the ones hardly being truthful about the power of their position, for it is always easier to be the doubter. Hell a high school student spending one day in a class about nihilism and solipsism can easily be a skeptic and argue with the best who study philosophy for decades. He could not only argue soundly but also excel and win the arguments, that is the power of skepticism. There's more to that story, but I apologize for the digression.