[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by threepointone i find it rather amusing how I jumped to the last page, hoping that maybe something technical and productive had come out of this thread. Does every thread in the cables forum really end up being like this, with everyone arguing against patrick?

It's Patrick's fault. He sets himself up for everything that comes to him with the silly, inane comments he makes with absolutely no proper logic or reason, to the point of sheer ridiculousness.

 

[Zenja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman It's Patrick's fault. He sets himself up for everything that comes to him with the silly, inane comments he makes with absolutely no proper logic or reason, to the point of sheer ridiculousness.

No reason? His direct experience with what he hears is no reason?

 

[joojoo2915]

Okay, Patrick, say Bigshot does try your cables, everything would be perfect, right? So let's say Bigshot sets up a good ***, all the conditions are agreed upon, everyone is happy. He takes the test and doesn't hear any difference between the $15,000 cable and the cable he ripped from a lamp a couple hours prior. Now, since you've obviously heard the difference, you either claim that he has made up his answer, can't hear well enough, doesn't have resolving enough equipment, etc. The only possible "scientific" outcome that could arise from you sending Bigshot your cables would be in the affirmative (cables do sound different). Unfortunately, Bigshot has stock in believing that the cables don't sound different so he wouldn't be your ideal candidate for testing. You on the other hand firmly believe that cables do sound different, and you own the cables, so this seems like kind of a no-brainer to me. Having you/your friends set up a *** and taking the test yourself would be infinitely more useful, and far easier, than having Bigshot take one.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joojoo2915 Having you/your friends set up a *** and taking the test yourself would be infinitely more useful, and far easier, than having Bigshot take one.

This is a ***-free forum.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenja No reason? His direct experience with what he hears is no reason?

I think science is underestimating nature again and the ears are more capable then they thought they would be!

 

[Vul Kuolun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline I think science is underestimating nature again and the ears are more capable then they thought they would be!

I think you're underestimating science as well as the influence of the mind on the perception of sound again; the ears are far less capable of what you whish them to be.

Did you ever think about how much "science" has to know about your hearing to make something like mp3 possible? Do you think you could contribute anything to the research of such a process with your revolutionary, 'breaking-the-walls-of-traditional-science'-kinda wisdom?

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vul Kuolun I think you're underestimating science as well as the influence of the mind on the perception of sound again; the ears are far less capable of what you whish them to be. Did you ever think about how much "science" has to know about your hearing to make something like mp3 possible? Do you think you could contribute anything to the research of such a process with your revolutionary, 'breaking-the-walls-of-traditional-science'-kinda wisdom?

Science always think they know it all. Alot of statements have been corrected during the years. I rest my case.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline Science always think they know it all. Alot of statements have been corrected during the years. I rest my case.

And a lot will have to be corrected in the future I might add.

 

[Vul Kuolun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline Alot of statements have been corrected during the years. I rest my case.

Quote:

And a lot will have to be corrected in the future I might add

That's what i would call "learning".

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vul Kuolun That's what i would call "learning".

Yes. And it can only be done if you accept there are things out there you don't know (yet).

 

[Vul Kuolun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees Yes. And it can only be done if you accept there are things out there you don't know (yet).

No. It can only be done if the scientist with the new theory is willing to prove it and tries to isolate the phenomenon with the goal to find the reason for it.
Nothing of the above applies to subjectivists by definition.
While it's the nature of the scientist to find out things he doesn't know, not the ones already known.

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline Science always think they know it all. Alot of statements have been corrected during the years. I rest my case.

Your case is porous. Here, let me show you why universal skepticism (what you're advocating, there) is incorrect. I'll draw this directly from George H. Smith, as he does a good job of collecting a concise argument against your position.

"The second form of universal skepticism consists of the doctrine that we must doubt every alleged instance of knowledge. Through this negative formulation, the universal skeptic seeks to avoid the contradiction of asserting a knowledge claim while denying the existence of knowledge. But the doctrine that we should doubt every knowledge claim translates into the positive assertion that man can never attain certainty - and this version of skepticism fares no better than the preceding.

We must ask if this "principle of universal doubt" is itself certain, or is it open to doubt as well? If it is known with certainty, at least one thing is beyond doubt, which makes the principle false. However, if the principle is open to doubt - that is, if it is not certain - then on what grounds can the skeptic claim greater plausibility for his theory than any other?

Why, according to the universal skeptic, should every knowledge claim be doubted? 'Because,' he will reply, 'man is capable of error, and it is possible in any given instance that he has committed an error.' We must remember, however, that 'error' (or falsehood) is the opposite of 'truth' and the skeptic who appeals to error implicitly admits that a proposition cannot be true and false, correct and incorrect, at the same time and in the same respect. thus, whether he likes it or not, the skeptic must surrender to the logical principle known as the Law of Contradiction (which states that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same manner). At the barist minimum, therefore, the skeptic must concede the validity of the Law of Contradiction and its corolaries: the Law of Identity (A is A; a thing is itself) and the Law of the Excluded Middle (something is either A or not-A).

Here we must note the main source of confusion in the skeptical approach: the equation of knowledge and certainty with infallibility. When the skeptic claims that every knowledge claim should be doubted because man is capable of making mistakes, he is simply pointing out the obvious: that man is a fallible being. No one, not even the most resolute antiskeptic, will deny that man is fallible.

The skeptic fails to realize that it is precisely man's fallibility that generates the need for a science of knowledge. If man were infallible - if all knowledge were given to him without the slightest possibility of error - then the need for epistemological guidelines with which to verify ideas, with which to sort the true from the false, would not arise. Man requires a method to minimize the possiblity of error, and this is the function of epistemology. A science of knowledge enables us to discriminate between justified and unjustified beliefs; and since the beliefs of an infallible being would not stand in need of verification, he could have no use for epistemological standards.

Man's capacity for error is not sufficient reason to suppose that he has committed an error in any specific instance. The skeptic cannot appeal solely to man's fallibility as the grounds for skepticism; further argumentation is required. If the skeptic wishes to attack a knowledge claim for which evidence has been provided, he must attack the evidence itself; he cannot merely appeal to human fallability. "Being aware that you may be mistaken doesn't mean merely being aware that you are a falible human being: it means that you have some concrete reason to suppose that you may be mistaken in this case."

Rational doubt arises contextually, in specific circumstances when the arguments and evidence offered inm support of a proposition are determined to be defective or insufficient. The skeptic cannot bypass the particulars of a knowledge claim and merely assert that, since man is fallible, the knowledge claim deserves to be doubted. To do so is to commit the "infallibility fallacy."

In order to justify his doubt, the skeptic must take issue with the specific arguments and evidence offered in support of a knowledge claim. If the proposition in question can withstand scrutiny, it qualifies as knowledge; and if the evidence in favor of the proposition is overwhelming, it rationally qualifies as certain knowledge - man's fallibility notwithstanding.








So, care to take issue with any particular claim after having rationally evaluated the evidence? Or are you just going to stick with "Well, man has been wrong before, so I choose to believe that man is wrong always!"

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley Your case is porous. Here, let me show you why universal skepticism (what you're advocating, there) is incorrect. I'll draw this directly from George H. Smith, as he does a good job of collecting a concise argument against your position. "The second form of universal skepticism consists of the doctrine that we must doubt every alleged instance of knowledge. Through this negative formulation, the universal skeptic seeks to avoid the contradiction of asserting a knowledge claim while denying the existence of knowledge. But the doctrine that we should doubt every knowledge claim translates into the positive assertion that man can never attain certainty - and this version of skepticism fares no better than the preceding. We must ask if this "principle of universal doubt" is itself certain, or is it open to doubt as well? If it is known with certainty, at least one thing is beyond doubt, which makes the principle false. However, if the principle is open to doubt - that is, if it is not certain - then on what grounds can the skeptic claim greater plausibility for his theory than any other? Why, according to the universal skeptic, should every knowledge claim be doubted? 'Because,' he will reply, 'man is capable of error, and it is possible in any given instance that he has committed an error.' We must remember, however, that 'error' (or falsehood) is the opposite of 'truth' and the skeptic who appeals to error implicitly admits that a proposition cannot be true and false, correct and incorrect, at the same time and in the same respect. thus, whether he likes it or not, the skeptic must surrender to the logical principle known as the Law of Contradiction (which states that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same manner). At the barist minimum, therefore, the skeptic must concede the validity of the Law of Contradiction and its corolaries: the Law of Identity (A is A; a thing is itself) and the Law of the Excluded Middle (something is either A or not-A). Here we must note the main source of confusion in the skeptical approach: the equation of knowledge and certainty with infallibility. When the skeptic claims that every knowledge claim should be doubted because man is capable of making mistakes, he is simply pointing out the obvious: that man is a fallible being. No one, not even the most resolute antiskeptic, will deny that man is fallible. The skeptic fails to realize that it is precisely man's fallibility that generates the need for a science of knowledge. If man were infallible - if all knowledge were given to him without the slightest possibility of error - then the need for epistemological guidelines with which to verify ideas, with which to sort the true from the false, would not arise. Man requires a method to minimize the possiblity of error, and this is the function of epistemology. A science of knowledge enables us to discriminate between justified and unjustified beliefs; and since the beliefs of an infallible being would not stand in need of verification, he could have no use for epistemological standards. Man's capacity for error is not sufficient reason to suppose that he has committed an error in any specific instance. The skeptic cannot appeal solely to man's fallibility as the grounds for skepticism; further argumentation is required. If the skeptic wishes to attack a knowledge claim for which evidence has been provided, he must attack the evidence itself; he cannot merely appeal to human fallability. "Being aware that you may be mistaken doesn't mean merely being aware that you are a falible human being: it means that you have some concrete reason to suppose that you may be mistaken in this case." Rational doubt arises contextually, in specific circumstances when the arguments and evidence offered inm support of a proposition are determined to be defective or insufficient. The skeptic cannot bypass the particulars of a knowledge claim and merely assert that, since man is fallible, the knowledge claim deserves to be doubted. To do so is to commit the "infallibility fallacy." In order to justify his doubt, the skeptic must take issue with the specific arguments and evidence offered in support of a knowledge claim. If the proposition in question can withstand scrutiny, it qualifies as knowledge; and if the evidence in favor of the proposition is overwhelming, it rationally qualifies as certain knowledge - man's fallibility notwithstanding. So, care to take issue with any particular claim after having rationally evaluated the evidence? Or are you just going to stick with "Well, man has been wrong before, so I choose to believe that man is wrong always!"

You forget one thing, they still haven't proven yet it exists or not.

As i said before, 99,99 percent of the so called tests are done faultly. As i quoted before, scientifically, the human is only capable of hearing things or differences if it happens in max. 5 seconds. In every situation, the time it takes to shut down the amp, switch the cable(s), turn the amp on, turn the dcplayer on and skip to the musical piece is taking way longer then 5 seconds!

Hence, total guessing!

The only theoretically correct setup would be:

2 exactly the same setups, with only different powercables or interlinks and intervals of 5 seconds are correct! This is never the case in those so called tests!

 

[Vul Kuolun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline You forget one thing, they still haven't proven yet it exists or not. As i said before, 99,99 percent of the so called tests are done faultly. As i quoted before, scientifically, the human is only capable of hearing things or differences if it happens in max. 5 seconds. In every situation, the time it takes to shut down the amp, switch the cable(s), turn the amp on, turn the dcplayer on and skip to the musical piece is taking way longer then 5 seconds! Hence, total guessing! The only theoretically correct setup would be: 2 exactly the same setups, with only different powercables or interlinks and intervals of 5 seconds are correct! This is never the case in those so called tests!

So, which value should we affiliate then to the so called long-term-"tests" with deliberatly chosen volume proclaimed usually by subjectivists?

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline You forget one thing, they still haven't proven yet it exists or not. As i said before, 99,99 percent of the so called tests are done faultly. As i quoted before, scientifically, the human is only capable of hearing things or differences if it happens in max. 5 seconds. In every situation, the time it takes to shut down the amp, switch the cable(s), turn the amp on, turn the dcplayer on and skip to the musical piece is taking way longer then 5 seconds! Hence, total guessing! The only theoretically correct setup would be: 2 exactly the same setups, with only different powercables or interlinks and intervals of 5 seconds are correct! This is never the case in those so called tests!

Thank you for actually citing something relevant and useful. I agree with you that that sort of rapid comparison of side by side systems would be the best for immediate detection of differences with the following caveats and comments.
1) Musical passages listened to are themselves longer than 5 seconds, so there is no way to compare sound at the beginning of the passage in one system with the same in another within 5 seconds. Which is related to:
2) No one is claiming that cables sound different or discernibly different at every moment or, to put it another way, that they are always different.
3) The studies you refer to (wish I could recall the reference) test different meaningless sounds in brief samples much like most hearing tests in general. It is meaningless and arbitray sounds that people generally cannot retain in memory sufficiently for over 5 seconds. And retention of these and to a much greater extent music is something one can improve with training as every musician must to perform long works or stay on pitch, etc. Music is meaningful and evocative of inner states, sensations and feelings like impact, hairs standing up, excitement, involvement, sadness, etc. People listening to music, especially whole extended passages and works, can discern difference in what is communicated or evoked in addition to discerning the uninterpreted sound only. To allow for this sort of discernment, which is also retained better in the interval until the next sound, longer samples and sessions of listening are more appropriate.
4) despite all this, having parallel systems subjects move back and forth between with the least interval would be clearly better than what has been done before.