[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotchaforce /img/forum/go_quote.gif and I dont see how penn and teller are idiots.

I just got the fourth season on DVD. Great show. Even if I don't agree with them, I still think they know what they're talking about and are intellectually honest. That's more than I can say for Michael Moore.

See ya
Steve

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you really saying that the test was faked? I'd say that is highly unlikely since there was no need to fake it. If you are going to pick apart Penn & Teller you need to do so on a factual basis and the water show probably isn't going to be the one. The definitely do have an agenda. There show has a Libertarian bent and they don't hide their agenda. And the point of their show is that people should think critically so they might actually approve of your not merely accepting the show on faith. However, the psychological phenomena of suggestibility is well established. We even know it has specifically been done with audio cables. Calling Penn & Teller potentially biased is one thing but calling them "bunch of idiots" is patently false. Even making such an accusation when it is demonstrably false shows that you are no longer arguing on the merits of the specific show. They are many things but stupid is not one of them. If they have been deceptive in the past, it does give you reason to be suspicious of them in the future--heck, magicians are professional liars--but that doesn't give you a basis for dismissing a show that is based on well established psychology. I do have some respect for Penn & Teller but I also find their dogmatic Libertarian leaning a little suspect. If you are aware of some dodgy subterfuge on their part please PM me

Perhaps "idiots" is too strong a word. "Fools" is probably a better one, and I've edited my previous comment accordingly. You may not agree with that comment either, but that's my opinion.

Anyway, back to the original topic.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reano /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL again and again lets go to headphones then (geez) I am telling you that there is easy tests for headphones that can demonstrate they have different audible sound and other audio components but not cables. Say whatever reasons you want for not doing the tests Even use the age old grammar, spelling (as I mentioned before would happen) but to restate. After a while those who can't or won't demonstrate they can hear the difference they claim (and note I am saying I am willing to demonstrate for other components and if you looked at the words, phrases, English, etc zzz (sidetrack) you would read I only state speakers as an example, <--- an example of an audio component with clear and easy difference). Just an example thats all ... eventually say 1) Oh I can't demonstrate it for x, y, z reason. I know I can hear it on my kit but I can't show you. 2) Why you ridicule me .. you mock us .. 3) Revert to name calling and just general chit chat 4) Talk about spelling, grammar (and many other off subject matters) 5) And probably most important don't deliver the proof Your not obligated to prove anything to me, thats a fact. I'm saying I bet you can't!!! Hehe but if you can please do I will be the first to say at last conclusive proof for cables. I say again you can do this for other components in the audio chain (better not say speakers again.... so I give another EXAMPLE) like headphones you seem more comfortable with those. Here's a simple test Grado RS1 vs my sennheiser 201 (or some other headphone like this) and no need to get use to it, etc you will hear the difference. (Wow Im so convinced) I'm willing to put money (vs someone else's money) people would hear the difference. I started the thread asking a simple question. Our ears are the best tests you say, you can hear the difference. Well use your ears to prove it. But like you say your not obligated too, no worries and neither is anyone else on this thread. I'm just asking the question.

You're still very hard to follow, but in any event, I'm growing weary of our dialogue. How about if I say that you win and I cannot prove anything to you, and you can declare victory.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif That more or less gets to my point, which is that you can construct an argument from positions taken by various "skeptics," including yourself, that if none of the components/items in the system other than the headphones/speakers make a difference in sound, when you put them all together the various systems one could construct should all sound the same (with the same set of headphones/speakers) -- but they do not.

Same speakers... same room. Same basic sound. I proved this to an audiophile by patching my diskman into his system and playing the same CD he was playing on his 300 pound gorilla of a CD player. When I switched back and forth and asked him which was which, he couldn't tell the difference between it and his fancy player. Just like you, he didn't like the results.

See ya
Steve

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif My arguing is related to your claim above being all too categorical, as if always and in absolutely all cases the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. This I'm saying is not always the case. There are exceptions. I agree in specific contexts the burden of proof is on the claimant, in general scientific argumentation, presentation of new theories etc, it is. But in certain circumstances and contexts it is not.

What you say here is reasonable and yet your application of it has not been. When I gave clear examples of positive claims that would require positive proof your rejoinder was always "wrong."

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif For instance, in a criminal court the burden of proof is always on the prosecutor (in some countries at least). The defendant can say "I am innocent", and he doesn't have the burden of proof on that positive claim. It is on the prosecutor side to support an opposing positive claim: that the defendant is guilty. Even outside courts of criminal law, not in all cases the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.

Yes, in the case of criminal court in the US the default assumption is innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a) that a crime took place b) that the defendant committed that crime. Court cases often hinge on evidence known through university studies to be un-reliable, like photo line ups.

Many of the errors in perception that can affect criminal trials can affect subjective audio claims, including the suggestibility of witnesses and the mutability of memory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif For example, just because the claimant lacks interest in having his claim accepted by the challenger, then he ignores the argumentative obligation to support his claim.

Er? Here you've just admitted that the claimant has an "argumentative obligation' which he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in people believing him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let the challenger find out on his own if he cares to do so. Otherwise, the challenger might as well reject the claim, and the claimant wouldn't care, because he stopped advocating that claim for acceptance by that challenger.

This simply isn't possible in many cases. If I, as the claimant, say my "quantum super-conducting tri-axial nano cables" improve the openness of any sound system it isn't possible for challengers to get my $10,000 dollar cables and disprove my claim. This is just one reason why positive claims are the responsibility of the claimant to prove. Your "argument from apathy" is not a sound basis for the reversal of this standard of argumentation and proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif The latter situation happens even in scientific contexts. Supporters of opposing theories bring their arguments forth, the opposing arguments collide, each side attacks the opponent's arguments and premises, and some times they don't reach agreement.

This is the wrong path to go down if you want to argue that positive claimants don't have to provide proof. In science the default position is that you have to not only provide proof but that your theory must be testable and repeatable--not "I heard a difference"

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Each side remains seeing stronger support on their side, and remains advocating it. This happens even in papers in scientific journals over years. Two opposing (or alternative) theories remaining under consideration. ...If some guy out of context then meets one of those scientists and asks him for proof of his theory, that scientist might very well ignore completely the request.

Yes, because the proof exist already in the form of a well argued, peer reviewed scientific paper with testable, repeatable findings!!!!! The burden of proof is still on the positive claimant! In your example, the positive claimant had already provided positive support for his claim and the scientist could refer "some guy" to his detailed, well reasoned, peer-reviewed, testable paper. Your whole argument has been a shaggy dog story of a contrived situation that, in the end, actually contradicts the point you were trying to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif So who has the burden of proof in practical terms may depend on context, motivation, circumstances, and history.

A vague statement anyone can make because it says nothing and yet have you have fully failed to prove it.

Your point about absolutes being to rigid was correct but your attempt to disprove that the burden of proof rests with the positive claimant is wholly insufficient and, ironically, does not meet the burden of proof.

 

[reano]

I may try and speed up the demise of my thread.

I have used this thread to check a couple of concerns I had regarding cables and their apparent audible, very discernible, quality as advertised in various marketing literature.

I love to listen to music invest in as much kit as I can afford and do the odd experiment here and there. Have found I really like the Shure e500, Grado RS1, AKG701, HD650 and the Audio Technica c7 for headphones for various applications. I have various rigs as per some of the signatures I see on here and loads of cables, sources, zzzzz.

As the original poster I now believe the thread has given me the right input I needed to make decisions regarding my future Cable purchases. So for me (the one who asked the question in the first place) it has been good and useful.

Thanks to those who constructed their arguments well from both the 'cable makes a difference camp' and from the 'cable skeptics' (yes it's a mass generalisation but you can get over it). There were others who were just here for the ride (my opinion).

I don't necessarily see anyone moving from their position but for me as a cable (or shall I say different quality cable buyer) it has been of great use.

Thanks all this was not a mock up, prank or whatever. Just some investigation. I will continue to contribute as/if responses come in but with several pages of responses (including some contributors with a lot of post counts) I have gained a lot.

 

[reano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're still very hard to follow, but in any event, I'm growing weary of our dialogue. How about if I say that you win and I cannot prove anything to you, and you can declare victory.

Thanks, I was very certain you would say something similar to this. As per the post above your feedback has helped me a lot more than you know.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I, as the claimant, say my "quantum super-conducting tri-axial nano cables" improve the openness of any sound system it isn't possible for challengers to get my $10,000 dollar cables and disprove my claim.

Right, but it is perfectly possible for them to simply not buy those cables, can't they? Of course they can also choose to write in forums and argue endlessly on a subject that hasn't been settled yet. It's all about choices.

Quote:

Your point about absolutes being to rigid was correct but your attempt to disprove that the burden of proof rests with the positive claimant is wholly insufficient and, ironically, does not meet the burden of proof.

Well, I disagree and will say something similar: your attempt to convince me of your point of view / claims has been whole insufficient too.

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif No offense, but I'm having some trouble following your comments due to the structure of your sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps you could take a little more time to compose your thoughts..

Indeed, your more recent posts, reano, have been at least a little bit easier to follow thanks to the use of separate paragraphs.

Generally one learns to ignore huge rambling swaths of text that do not have paragraph breaks. People who write that way haven't organized their thoughts well which makes their point, if any, hard to follow.

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Right, but it is perfectly possible for them to simply not buy those cables, can't they? Of course they can also choose to write in forums and argue endlessly on a subject that hasn't been settled yet. It's all about choices.

Indeed, there are many choices to be made. But as to merely "not buying" products with untested claims...making false claims about a product is, in many circumstances, called "fraud." It is legally up to the seller not to make fraudulent claims, not up to the buyer to have to spot them. "Buyer Beware" is a practical saying, not a legal philosophy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif your attempt to convince me of your point of view / claims has been whole insufficient too.

Well, there is something we can agree on!

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif Er? Here you've just admitted that the claimant has an "argumentative obligation' which he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in people believing him.

Nope, read my words twice, he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in that challenger accepting his claims or agreeing with him.

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope, read my words twice, he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in that challenger accepting his claims or agreeing with him.

I read your words once. That was enough. JK.

Actually I did read your words several times. Your writing wasn't especially clear and couldn't believe, at first, the huge gap in your logic and the opening you gave me. I understood the "argument from apathy," that a claimant may "choose" not to advocate to specific people. However, you also chose to refer to the positive claimants obligation as "the argumentative obligation to support his claim" which he can choose to ignore. Ignoring it doesn't remove the obligation, it just means the obligation is being ignored. You are the one who chose to acknowledge the obligation by calling it such.

You may regret your choice of words and say you didn't mean them but you can't legitimately argue that they support your position.

 

[gotchaforce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I did watch it. The film showed a guy filling water bottles with tap water. I can show you a film that shows aliens blowing up the white house. I don't want to divert the thread, and perhaps my previous comment about them already did that. But I have watched and read a number of things that they (i.e., including Teller) have produced or have been behind, and they have a particular social and political agenda, and also some beliefs or opinions that are rather foolish and misguided. In addition, my read on many things they have done is that they wish to prove that the average person is a fool. Now I don't want to debate that point here, but I happen to have come to know how they have done at least one other project, and I don't trust their motives (they are in the entertainment business remember) and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Penn. But that's just my opinion. I understand others may have a different opinion of them, and that's ok.

Boy i never in my wildest dreams could have thought of "well its obviously a fake, they put different kinds of water in the bottles, but showed him using all the same water! FAKE FAKE!!!". I was thinking something along the lines of "well clearly the water was in the bottles longer that were served later, so the taste of the water bottle interfered with the taste of the water! INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE!".

I bet it was their personal agenda to try and rob the water companies of all their money! people will stop buying bottled water once they produced this show that was a mockery of bottled water! They obviously had something to gain out of showing that people were easily swayed by the pretty bottles.

Its not like penn and teller have had dozens and dozens of credible people on their shows, we all know they have always hired fake actors to support their claims!

To say it is a fake is a substantial claim and im surprised you had the gall to say it when it is so false.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif You may regret your choice of words and say you didn't mean them but you can't legitimately argue that they support your position.

No I don't regret my choice of words. You seem to have also overlooked the fact that I agreed that, in general, the claimant is certainly obliged to provide support for his claim, precisely for example in scientific contexts or even in legal courts situations. My whole point hasn't been to prove anything, just to show exceptions to your dogmatical "Claimant must (always) hold the burden of proof". I simply elaborated on the fact that such "obligation to support a claim" in practice can be ignored or overriden with very reasonable causes.

One other point I could argue about is the fact that you mention theories have to be "repeatable":
Quote:

In science the default position is that you have to not only provide proof but that your theory must be testable and repeatable--not "I heard a difference"

Theories are not to be repeatable, it's the experiments in support of theories the ones that should to be repeatable, the tests, not the theories.

One other thing, theories are not necessarily "proved". The words "proof" and "to prove" has been used quite carelessly in this thread, even by you, in spite of your attempts to appear careful in your arguments. Proofs within science apply mostly to mathematics. In most other scientific domains it is rare to find proof of explanations to phenomena, mostly it's experiments or models or findings that are consistent with the theory, or that explain it better than previous attempts. That doesn't mean such experiments "prove" the theory, just make it stronger.

Anyway, we seem to enjoy the sport of prolonging an argument for the sake of it, but it's also a choice to continue arguing or not when things start getting pointless.

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dura /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sometimes I wonder if these 'if you can't measure it it ain't there' types also haunt red wine forums.

Maybe they should? It is a matter of "measure" it or it ain't there but "detect" with your senses it in a way that compensates for the psychology of human judgement and perception or it ain't there.

If the wine forums were all about magnetic flavor improvers and $3,000 "wine-conditioning" crystal glasses that reduce the "harshness" of the wine then such questions might well be legitimate. I, personally, like to put my money where it makes the most difference so I have an interest in separating what is from what seems like it is.

There was a fun test where a tv program gave fancy wine and 2 Buck Chuck (Charles Shaw) wine to culinary arts students. The 2 Buck Chuck earned high marks and they were surprised to find that out. Like sound, trained pallets can tell more than untrained ones--professional wine tasters didn't give the 2 Buck Chuck marks that were quite as high. However, all people are still subject to the same perceptual and judgement errors as ordinary people at near threshold of detection.

High end audio and high end wine have a lot in common. They are both expensive and subjective. The primary difference is that sound and the electrical signals that generate sound are electronically measurable and quantifiable in ways that flavor isn't. On the other hand, both wine and sound can be systematically tested subjectively by actual people in a way that compensates for the psychology of human judgment and perception. Both wine drinkers and audiophiles benefit from knowing what they can and can't actually tell the difference from.