[Haris Javed]

Agreed. Those who value “science” over real experiences have blind faith.

Exactly! Science is irrelevant, and global warming is a made up thing

 

[tansand]

*sigh* Man, you claimed to hear differences, very clearly, between files that were bit-for-bit perfect copies of each other and only admitted to that after I showed you they were in fact copies. I no longer trust your judgement on subjective listening tests.

I'm just saying. I thought I should update, instead of leaving incomplete information for people who might read this in the future.

I have to object to your use of the words 'only admitted to that' above, they insinuate that I was hiding something which we both know is not the case. I shared what I thought in good faith, and provided evidence to you which disproved it. Don't believe me, that's fine, but don't imply any kind of dishonesty on my part.

 

[Ramblinman]

Exactly! Science is irrelevant, and global warming is a made up thing

Science is typically flawed and is often disproven by some new experiment that is itself later disproven by another experiment and on and on it goes. But just to be clear, you think global warming is related to sound recording? Interesting

 

[bigshot]

pssh science is overrated! scientific method is a joke, and personal experiences trump evidence, and statistical methods!

Agreed. Those who value “science” over real experiences have blind faith.

Trolls. No value here. I'm going to ignore this blather.

 

[Haris Javed]

Science is typically flawed and is often disproven by some new experiment that is itself later disproven by another experiment and on and on it goes. But just to be clear, you think global warming is related to sound recording? Interesting

man you are so right. I would give you a but its kinda hard to do via keyboard, and a mouse! I can see you will have a very bright future, Good Luck!

I can see you replacing this man soon!

 

[Haris Javed]

Trolls. No value here. I'm going to ignore this blather.

you are right, I was being sarcastic.

 

[Ramblinman]

Trolls. No value here. I'm going to ignore this blather.

If responding to it , in your world, is ignoring it you are killin it. LOL

 

[Ramblinman]

man you are so right. I would give you a but its kinda hard to do via keyboard, and a mouse! I can see you will have a very bright future, Good Luck!

I can see you replacing this man soon!

Actually have had a very successful life. I attribute it , at least partially, to not being gullible. Science is useful, but to think it has an answer for everything is ignorant.

Some put blind faith in something because somebody told them a scientific basis backed it up. If you accept that, but don’t understand the science behind it personally, science is your religion.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Actually have had a very successful life. I attribute it , at least partially, to not being gullible. Science is useful, but to think it has an answer for everything is ignorant.

Some put blind faith in something because somebody told them a scientific basis backed it up. If you accept that, but don’t understand the science behind it personally, science is your religion.

Science is by definition, not religion. Nor is it blind faith. It’s definitionally not either of these things. If science doesn’t have the answers for every facet of audio reproduction, how are we capable of creating devices that sound so good in the first place? Why do we need additional “magic” to be present?

 

[castleofargh]

to everybody, please discuss ideas not people. and if you feel like it, why not try constructive posts for a change? it's a new trend I heard about.

Agreed. Those who value “science” over real experiences have blind faith.

Science is typically flawed and is often disproven by some new experiment that is itself later disproven by another experiment and on and on it goes. But just to be clear, you think global warming is related to sound recording? Interesting

science is poorly pushed around in this section by people who for the vast majority(me included) are not, I repeat, are not scientists or researchers. but the scientific method has nothing to do with blind faith, it is pretty much the anti blind faith method.
if you argue that we mischaracterize science, I'm open to discussion(maybe in a dedicated topic to stop with off topics) and would probably agree quite often that we take too many liberties. but if your point is that science is wrong all the time and always changing(true), so we'd better trust our impressions because they are "real"(false), then you are posting in the wrong part of the forum and we should stop here.

 

[colonelkernel8]

I'm just saying. I thought I should update, instead of leaving incomplete information for people who might read this in the future.

I have to object to your use of the words 'only admitted to that' above, they insinuate that I was hiding something which we both know is not the case. I shared what I thought in good faith, and provided evidence to you which disproved it. Don't believe me, that's fine, but don't imply any kind of dishonesty on my part.

Wasn’t attempting to imply any dishonesty, and I know you provided the files in good faith. I’m merely suggesting that you of all people should now understand the fallibility of human hearing, and take a more skeptical approach instead of trying to argue from a perspective of false confidence.

 

[Ramblinman]

to everybody, please discuss ideas not people. and if you feel like it, why not try constructive posts for a change? it's a new trend I heard about.



science is poorly pushed around in this section by people who for the vast majority(me included) are not, I repeat, are not scientists or researchers. but the scientific method has nothing to do with blind faith, it is pretty much the anti blind faith method.
if you argue that we mischaracterize science, I'm open to discussion(maybe in a dedicated topic to stop with off topics) and would probably agree quite often that we take too many liberties. but if your point is that science is wrong all the time and always changing(true), so we'd better trust our impressions because they are "real"(false), then you are posting in the wrong part of the forum and we should stop here.[/QUOTYou are incorrect in saying I said science is always wrong.
The scientific method is only as good as the quality of its execution and controls.Often people accept that science is good science, just because someone said it is “scientific”. So belief in science can absolutely involve blind faith.

The term junk science exists for good reason.

 

[jagwap]

to everybody, please discuss ideas not people. and if you feel like it, why not try constructive posts for a change? it's a new trend I heard about.



science is poorly pushed around in this section by people who for the vast majority(me included) are not, I repeat, are not scientists or researchers. but the scientific method has nothing to do with blind faith, it is pretty much the anti blind faith method.
if you argue that we mischaracterize science, I'm open to discussion(maybe in a dedicated topic to stop with off topics) and would probably agree quite often that we take too many liberties. but if your point is that science is wrong all the time and always changing(true), so we'd better trust our impressions because they are "real"(false), then you are posting in the wrong part of the forum and we should stop here.

Well said.

It means my suggestion of changing the forum name may not be helpful. I was thinking how dogmatically some cling to the ideas of established thinking, that is othen a few decades old and out of date. So much so it is likeke some non denominational religion. So we should call this place the Church of Science. Then the protectors of the faith could have the last say as they like. But then as it would not be science in its true form, perhaps a change that keeps the science theme, but doesn't fully attach science rigor.

So how about the forum "Church of Scientology"?

No?

 

[bigshot]

I agree about the out of date stuff. A lot of people try to apply the sort of things audiophiles worried about in the analogue days to modern digital technology, but it's apples and oranges. Digital doesn't have veils or coloration or distortion. It just works, and if it doesn't work, it usually fails big. I read audiophile reviews and I have no idea what they're referring to. It sure isn't anything related to the way the component they're reviewing actually works.

 

[Ramblinman]

I agree about the out of date stuff. A lot of people try to apply the sort of things audiophiles worried about in the analogue days to modern digital technology, but it's apples and oranges. Digital doesn't have veils or coloration or distortion. It just works, and if it doesn't work, it usually fails big. I read audiophile reviews and I have no idea what they're referring to. It sure isn't anything related to the way the component they're reviewing actually works.

I agreeaudiophile magazine speak is often silly. Kind of like cigar reviews, hints of leather and cocoa with a nutty edge??????