[DaveStarWalker]

Abbey road = Studio Connections. Bw and Classé Audio Omega for monitoring purpose.

Skywalker ranch = Shunyata cables, bw...

Bob Ludwig = Transparent Cables. EgglestonWorks Ivy loudspeakers...

Etc.

 

[DaveStarWalker]

Then provide some evidence.

No, science has the right answer. What do you think science is for?

Apparently you don’t have the right answer but of course, I don’t know whether being wrong matters to you or not.

G

Science is a method, not a revelated truth. Never.

At best, it is a statistic redondance.

You make a great misinterpretation between Science and scientism...

Try Karl Popper, Paul Fayerabend, Thomas Kuhn...

Epistemology classics.

And then, we should talk together.

 

[71 dB]

Thomas Kuhn...

I tried to read him, but after 50 pages or so I had to give up. I couldn't take his intrusive and insanely dry style. I agree with him that oftentimes science isn't pretty. It can be chaotic process of paradigm shifts, but still science delivers. Science isn't worthless just because it isn't a beautiful line of steady progress. The messiness tells about human nature, the scientists then science itself. There is nothing to replace science. It is the best we have, so in that sense what is the point of Kuhn's ramblings? Should people be made even more anti-science they already are? What good would that do to humanity?

 

[71 dB]

Science is a method, not a revelated truth. Never.

Science is the method of getting as close to the truth as possible. Trying to get closer and closer is what science is about.

 

[DaveStarWalker]

I tried to read him, but after 50 pages or so I had to give up. I couldn't take his intrusive and insanely dry style. I agree with him that oftentimes science isn't pretty. It can be chaotic process of paradigm shifts, but still science delivers. Science isn't worthless just because it isn't a beautiful line of steady progress. The messiness tells about human nature, the scientists then science itself. There is nothing to replace science. It is the best we have, so in that sense what is the point of Kuhn's ramblings? Should people be made even more anti-science they already are? What good would that do to humanity?

OK but this is one of the basics about the science of the Science (epistemology).

Paradigm = he is the father of this modern concept.

And yes, Science is a worthy method. Certainly the best. But truth for instance, is a totally another universe.

Beware of every form of absolutism. This is not good.

Science without conscience is the ruin of the soul. Sort of.

 

[gregorio]

Abbey road = Studio Connections.

“Van Damme has consistently delivered a quality cable solution to the Studios for nearly 30 years” - Simon Campbell, Head of Technical Service, Abbey Road Studios.

Skywalker ranch = Shunyata cables

These are Skywalker Sound’s mic cables:
“PREMIUM CABLES DIRECT FROM STAGE TO CONTROL ROOM
Wireworld 65’ (2)
Canare Starquad 110’ (16)
Gotham 125’ - Skywalker Sound Equipment list.

Bob Ludwig = Transparent Cables.

Ah, you got one right. I believe Bob Ludwig is an endorser of Transparent Cables so of course he must use them.

Science is a method, not a revelated truth.

Right, so we don’t use Watts to tell us the truth of electrical power, volts to tell us the voltage or Ohms to tell us the resistance and 1+1=2 is not the truth. Got it, thanks for the science lesson!

G

 

[71 dB]

OK but this is one of the basics about the science of the Science (epistemology).

Paradigm = he is the father of this modern concept.

Okay, but his book was probably the only book in my life I wasn't able to read through. All I could think about while reading it was "Who writes like this?"

 

[DaveStarWalker]

Okay, but his book was probably the only book in my life I wasn't able to read through. All I could think about while reading it was "Who writes like this?"

And who read like this lol

 

[71 dB]

And who read like this lol

Me. I am used to books that use for example humour to keep the reader engaged and get to the point within a few pages.

 

[DaveStarWalker]

Me. I am used to books that use for example humour to keep the reader engaged and get to the point within a few pages.

Karl Popper was a very good writer. Like it.

 

[bfreedma]

Science is a method, not a revelated truth. Never.

At best, it is a statistic redondance.

You make a great misinterpretation between Science and scientism...

Try Karl Popper, Paul Fayerabend, Thomas Kuhn...

Epistemology classics.

And then, we should talk together.

While discussing philosophy is certainly interesting, the vast majority of what we're calling science is the truth as we know it today. That may change, but change will be based on evidence, not random internet claims.

Using philosophical examples without evidence to counter known science is often the model chosen by those who simply don't want to believe the science where it's safe and easy, with no personal risk. Do you question gravity in the same way? If not, why not?

 

[DaveStarWalker]

Are you interested in Quantum mechanics? About gravity ?

If not, you should.

And epistemology isn't an ontological philosophy, metaphysics wise. We not discuss about the angels sexes, but about... the multiple sciences's genres.

 

[gregorio]

Using philosophical examples without evidence to counter known science is often the model chosen by those who simply don't want to believe the science

Or, as a deflection when the facts they have quoted to support their audiophile marketing myths are shown to be false!

G

 

[bfreedma]

Are you interested in Quantum mechanics? About gravity ?

If not, you should.

And epistemology isn't an ontological philosophy, metaphysics wise. We not discuss about the angels sexes, but about... the multiple sciences's genres.

Yes, I'm interested in QM. Right now, I'm interested in how you believe QM will impact our baseline knowledge of Earth's gravity. And how your questioning of QM/gravity impacts your daily life, because we're discussing some very basic science around cables.

While we will certainly learn more/refine our learning around both QM/gravity and cables/performance, I don't expect any of that new knowledge will completely supersede what we know today. I may be proven wrong, but that's going to require objective evidence, not random philosophical discussion.

 

[DaveStarWalker]

Or, as a deflection when the facts they have quoted to support their audiophile marketing myths are shown to be false!

G

Note that this applies to any speech.

Also, the basis of science is to be falsifiable (Falsifiability / Popper).

To meditate...