castleofargh
Sound Science Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Posts
- 10,435
- Likes
- 6,049
Quote:
the evidence leads you to the conclusion! not the other way around. if the guy comes with a claim and then struggles to prove it. it only goes to show that he should have kept his mouth shut from the start . there really is no way to sugar coat this.
obviously the wildest the claim, the hardest it is to prove. the solution is simple, be more prudent with what I'm saying.
I think I heard a difference but I didn't pass any blind test, what I can say about this is "I think I heard it", "I feel like I heard it". anything that in the end isn't a claim.
if I passed an abx, then my claim should be that " I could pass an abx under this and those conditions!". and not some fancy oversimplified generalizations.
it's really a matter of keeping what we know in relation to what we say. basic honesty should induce this self control. sadly this is internet and people like to talk big and make universal rules out of one half baked experience. oh I heard a cable that made a weird sound once, "hey guys, cables sound different!" that's something we're reading way to often.
the legitimate right to ask for someone to back up his claim is a practical tool against those people who bite more than they can chew. and for us all, a way to know more about the matter at hand by getting some evidence and a precise context.
the more constraints the more specific the conclusion and the more chances to claim something right. so yes, I'm all for constraints!
removing as many bias as possible is really doing that.
and about having to prove something that has reached a consensus, well if everybody agrees, there shouldn't be too much challenge. except if you have a 5year old kid, then "why?" will be heard quite a few times ^_^.
I agree, and it's nicely said. but we're struggling everyday with people who don't get why they should take responsibility for what they said, and you want them to get the implications of entropy?
I'm afraid you will have to lower your expectations.
Probably the largest disparity I have seen in discussions here has been the level of evidence required to be called "proof". Most heated debates come down to what is acceptable evidence and how much of it is needed to be accepted as "proof" rather than theory. If I can't hear a difference, that isn't sufficient to say one doesn't exist. If digital equipment doesn't record a difference, some accept that as proof, others still argue the margin of error is high enough that this is insufficient. Philosophy courses will point out that it is basically impossible to "prove" anything and that what we have are at best evidence supported suppositions. What we really need to do is standardize on an amount and type of evidence that must be presented before we (collectively) are willing to accept any theory as true.
the evidence leads you to the conclusion! not the other way around. if the guy comes with a claim and then struggles to prove it. it only goes to show that he should have kept his mouth shut from the start . there really is no way to sugar coat this.
obviously the wildest the claim, the hardest it is to prove. the solution is simple, be more prudent with what I'm saying.
I think I heard a difference but I didn't pass any blind test, what I can say about this is "I think I heard it", "I feel like I heard it". anything that in the end isn't a claim.
if I passed an abx, then my claim should be that " I could pass an abx under this and those conditions!". and not some fancy oversimplified generalizations.
it's really a matter of keeping what we know in relation to what we say. basic honesty should induce this self control. sadly this is internet and people like to talk big and make universal rules out of one half baked experience. oh I heard a cable that made a weird sound once, "hey guys, cables sound different!" that's something we're reading way to often.
the legitimate right to ask for someone to back up his claim is a practical tool against those people who bite more than they can chew. and for us all, a way to know more about the matter at hand by getting some evidence and a precise context.
the burden of proof is obviously there for any claim. there is no such thing as a free pass
Strict experimentalism needs to be subject to constraints for it to have any value.
There are some claims that are obviously true because they're an extension of facts that have been shown to be true many times in the past. As the old wisecrack goes, it's easy to find two cables that sound different, just cut the wires in one of them. Once you are told that one of them has been cut there's no point going through an ABX test, since we know cut wires don't conduct electricity.
the more constraints the more specific the conclusion and the more chances to claim something right. so yes, I'm all for constraints!
removing as many bias as possible is really doing that.
and about having to prove something that has reached a consensus, well if everybody agrees, there shouldn't be too much challenge. except if you have a 5year old kid, then "why?" will be heard quite a few times ^_^.
Furthermore, we need to distinguish burden of proof from the concept of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is founded on the idea that complex systems typically have a high entropy, i.e. they can adopt a large number of different states and switch between them in seemingly random fashion (in other words, the interaction of a large number of processes and variables makes it effectively impossible to predict the state it will be in). An experiment is a process in which we make an intervention in such a system to see whether we can cause it to tend to adopt a smaller number of states. In other words, we're trying to see whether we can decrease the entropy of the system. Now, I don't need to do an experiment to prove that entropy doesn't decrease spontaneously. The second law of thermodynamics is quite clear - everything tends towards the equlibrium in which entropy is maximised. That's why the null hypothesis, that everything is at equilibrium and there are no differences, doesn't need to be proved - it's a starting point which you can only seek to disprove.
I agree, and it's nicely said. but we're struggling everyday with people who don't get why they should take responsibility for what they said, and you want them to get the implications of entropy?
I'm afraid you will have to lower your expectations.