[castleofargh]

 

  But if both you and Russel independently say there is a teapot, then it simply can't be just coincidence. Therefore, I believe there must be a teapot.
 
Cheers

 

Corollary: if both you and Russell believe that this is a teapot, and are both subject to the same human psychological flaws and are both exposed to similar cultural influences, there still may not be a teapot

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 
Ha, just kidding. People imagine all sorts of wacky things independently.
 
There is no reason to believe in the teapot unless there is scientific (not merely anecdotal) evidence to support it.
 
Where is your teapot now?

obviously the science guys are hiding the truth so they can claim property of the teapot next time they launch mega maid
 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  obviously the science guys are hiding the truth so they can claim property of the teapot next time they launch mega maid

 
Haha. The "teapot" is actually a code word for something even more elusive...
 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

[Claritas]

I didn't say that sound science had any rules that priveleged a form of evidence. I said this is sound science. Presumably, that means that we use scientific principles here, and scientific principles include the fairly basic concept that the null hypothesis is accepted unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise. If I claim that there is a teapot floating in orbit around mars, and you claim that there isn't, the two claims do not hold equal weight (even though they are both anecdotal) - the null hypothesis (that there is no teapot) is favored unless I am able to show some evidence supporting my Martian teapot hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is favored only in light of everything else we already know about Mars (the contention that null hypotheses have a privileged epistemic status requires its own justification). For all the talk of testing, practically, it's just a cover for admitted inexperience. It adds nothing to the discussion to trot it out at every turn. Become more interested in people and their experiences instead of criticizing from the sidelines.

 

[ab initio]

the contention that null hypotheses have a privileged epistemic status requires its own justification

. For all the talk of testing, practically, it's just a cover for admitted inexperience. It adds nothing to the discussion to trot it out at every turn. Become more interested in people and their experiences instead of criticizing from the sidelines.

here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
 

 

For all the talk of testing, practically, it's just a cover for admitted inexperience.

 
no, it's the null hypothesis.
 
Cheers

 

[bigshot]

  since headphones can easily sound different, what is it that causes those differences as opposed to cables without that type of variance?

 
Headphones are mechanical sound, not electronic.

 

[Claritas]

I'll stand by my words, as you've given me no reason to think otherwise.

 

[bigshot]

A bit of googling on logic might help. I really wish they would still teach logic in high school.

 

[Claritas]

You preach coolheadedness and respect in the Oppo thread but don't practice it yourself here.

 

[bigshot]

Sure I do... Research how cables work. That will tell you what to look for. Then do a google search on thresholds of human perception. If that doesn't convince you, do controlled tests to see if it shows up. I got five bucks on "it doesn't".

 

[Claritas]

Sure I do... Research how cables work. That will tell you what to look for. Then do a google search on thresholds of human perception. If that doesn't convoke you, do controlled tests to see if it shows up. I got five bucks on "it doesn't".

I never said cables passed any test. I said the opposite. So I don't think you'd lose your five bucks anyway.

In any case, go on insult someone else and expect them to be polite if you want, but I think more of you than that.

 

[bigshot]

I'm willing to risk my five bucks on the null hypothesis too! Especially in areas that have been researched heavily like home audio.

 

[Claritas]

I'm willing to risk my five bucks on the null hypothesis too! Especially in areas that have been researched heavily like home audio.

Lol. Are hardcore objectivists really just cheap skates hiding behind tests they haven't run on equipment they haven't tried?

 

[bigshot]

I've already looked into cables long ago. I found out it's smart to be cheap in this department. Use the money you save on your speakers.

 

[Claritas]

I've already looked into cables long ago. I found out it's smart to be cheap in this department. Use the money you save on your speakers.

I've already agreed with you. But my description seems unfortunately true of a lot of Sound so-called Scientists. I have yet to see a recent thread pertaining to actual, specific equipment where shouting "DBT!" or "Bias!" moved the discussion in a productive direction. It might be strangely satisfying to inexperienced bull****ters but not to anyone really trying to understand and learn.

 

[cel4145]

I've already agreed with you. But my description seems unfortunately true of a lot of Sound so-called Scientists. I have yet to see a recent thread pertaining to actual, specific equipment where shouting "DBT!" or "Bias!" moved the discussion in a productive direction. It might be strangely satisfying to inexperienced bull****ters but not to anyone really trying to understand and learn.

Many of the people who act like hardcore scientists tend to apply their objectivism sporadically. If they didn't, they wouldn't have any fun here. They couldn't post their subjective evaluations. 80-90% of what's posted on head-fi is dubious if one applies hardcore objective scientific principles and one demands evidence. If Head-Fi strictly followed objectivist principles, there wouldn't be an active forum.

For instance, Bigshot didn't you make some claim about pads in the Oppo thread being exactly the same? Did you do the proper testing to determine that? Or are you claiming that your audio memory is infallible and you are unaffected by expectation bias

So even most of the science types hedge their scientific skepticism when it suits their needs.

I post about what I believe I hear of my equipment, even though I know it's unreliable. I place some stock in what a lot of other people say, even though I know it's unreliable, too. It's a convenient fiction that we are all experiencing for enjoying audio equipment. I'll admit I do it. It would be nice if some of the objectivists would admit they play the game, too

That being said, I think the expensive cable game is no fun to play. Experimenting with expensive cables have not been able to make me suspend disbelief enough to continue to play. And not interested at all in the sci-fi of power cables (lol)