castleofargh
Sound Science Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Posts
- 10,425
- Likes
- 6,036
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. “
Richard FeynmanThe main idea is to accept that we might not have all the cards in hand. We don't know what we don't know! So it's only rational to start on the principle that we might be missing some elements and that before jumping to conclusion, we should at least make sure the elements we do have are reliable. thus all the measurements and requests for blind tests. Only then, go look for the elements we might have missed, and eventually try to make a statement about what we could conclude.
What we have been taking for granted for a century might be disproved tomorrow by one new information we never had before. Science is reasoned humility. The more we learn, the more we realize how much we didn't know before and how little we can trust ourselves. A good start into the world of science is to avoid jumping to conclusion.
For that reason, people coming in saying “I know”,"I heard", "it's like this" are always a little suspicious. As ignorance is easy to mistake for self confidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
So what does this have to do with sound science sub forum? Well to quote good old Richard F again:
it's only logical that sound science would also try to discuss topics with all that in mind and use the work and tools provided by others as stepping stones for our understanding. Trying not to assume that we “know it all” when we might not. And expecting everybody to be skeptical of us just like they try to be of themselves. Not for personal reasons, but because we all try our hardest not to be fooled. Trusting unconditionally some dude on the interweb, that wouldn't be the brightest move to avoid being fooled ^_^.
1/ So expect skepticism and be skeptical yourself! There is no such thing as being too cautious when it comes to trying to learn.
If you can't stand it when people doubt you, bring actual proof.
2/ Fact vs opinion:
From the wiki:
for most audio arguments, if we can't verify or demonstrate repeatability, then it isn't a fact.
Only verified things should be claimed in sound science. The rest should be clearly expressed as hypothesis or opinion. “I feel like”, “I believe that”, “maybe this”. Such sentences aren't claims, yet they let you express what you think just fine without having to justify yourself.
It's the difference between “I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky” and “I can fly, I can touch the sky”.
The first isn't a claim, it's a belief and as such doesn't need proof.
To us it matters a lot because we're always trying to assess what is factual and what isn't as a mean not to fool ourselves.
3/ burden of proof:
The person making a claim is responsible for trying to prove it.
If I say that I've been abducted by aliens in a pink flying saucer, I can't possibly demand to people doubting my claim, to prove I wasn't abducted. As the one making the claim, it falls on me to prove the reality of it. And if I can't, well then it's only natural that nobody would take me seriously.
Anybody trying to get away from that responsibility is usually doing what is called appeal to ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
trying to escape the burden of proof after making a claim is as good as saying “never trust me again”. So try to keep in mind what your claim is, or what the other guy's claim is. To be clear on everyone's responsibility, and to avoid being dragged into irrational debates.
4/ measurable vs audible vs taste:
A typical example of this would be 2 people arguing about a better sound, one thinking “I preferred that sound, so it was better”, the other guy thinking “I've seen measurements, that one had lower distortions”.
Apples and oranges. Yet if nobody pays attention, that kind of topic can go on for pages with both party getting mad from the apparent nonsense the other side is posting. ^_^
So please try to pay attention to what kind of sound is being discussed in a given topic and never hesitate to make mention of which one you're talking about to avoid confusion.
5/ conditional truth:
Something can be true under a given set of conditions, but false under other conditions.
Statement: “I'm always right!”
Condition: exclude all the times where I'm wrong. ^_^
within those specific conditions, my statement isn't a lie.
The conditions of an experience are just as important as the experience itself. It helps stay true to the conclusions of a test, but it also saves everybody some time as we avoid exploring possibilities outside of the boundaries of the given experience.
Any time you have a problem/question, or anytime you give a feedback about a device, always remember to make mention of the rest of the gear used and the different things you have tried. For example, there is nothing as wasteful as someone talking about a DAP or an amp without stating what headphone he used to reach those conclusions. The headphone is clearly an important condition of how an amp+heaphone will behave. seems obvious yet I still read stuff like that on a regular basis.
Because almost no statement can stay true under all circumstances, it is always better to mention a little too much, than not enough. Be specific!
6/ when in Rome do as the Romans do:
It's a given, but if we are to trust science, and follow all of the above, we have to trust scientific methods:
-Measurements are the most accurate methods to demonstrate the state of a signal.
-Blind tests are the most accurate methods to demonstrate audibility. http://seanolive.blogspot.fr/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
it's not perfect, but as long as we don't find more reliable, it's the subjective test of choice.
-And an opinion can be right just like it can be wrong. It has very little weight outside of discussing taste, trends, and preferences.
If you believe there are better methods, please tell us all about it, but only if you can demonstrate that they are more accurate than the one we recommend! Just rejecting a method while offering no accurate alternative is not something we need.
If you reject blind testing and measurements, you reject the right to discuss many topics, as you will not be able to prove your point in a way that will satisfy others. And they, in turn, will use methods you reject to demonstrate their points to you. This would just be a painful waste of time for everybody and you will be taken out at some point, as the guy coming to play tennis in a bowling alley.
the very purpose of the sound science sub forum is to discuss sound by the mean of science and scientific methods. If you don't care for that, you're in the wrong section.
in the sound science jungle our weapons of choice are:
Logic
Repeatability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeatability (measurements, blind tests)
Skepticism
Honesty
Our enemies are:
Self confidence
Ignorance
Lies
Gremlins
And their weapons are
Bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Placebo
Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Marketing
Last edited:
