[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

I offered no criticism of people who support their position with reason or verifiable claims.

 
Who's to say? "A small group of people pose as self-appointed guardians of science despite having no credentials of any kind" is rather ambiguous and centers specifically on lack of "credentials" which could just as well apply to one supporting their position with reason or verifiable claims.
 
Quote:

I did offer an observation of those who claim reason and objectivity while displaying little or none of those qualities, and pointed out they have no credentials.

 
And I would argue that pointing that out was irrelevant, and ultimately ad hominem.
 
Quote:

But "Sound Science" doesn't host much in the way of reasoned, deductive argument. A case in point was Greenleaf7's "snake oil" thread. It was just mockery. It may be that all the products deserve mockery but is that science? A scientific approach would surely involve at least some analysis and criticism of claims made? Pointing and laughing is no more scientific than name calling.

 
I can't really argue with you there. As much of a guilty pleasure as that may be, I agree that it really doesn't belong in Sound Science and ultimately does it a disservice.
 
Quote:

Credentials may matter in a debate where there is an impasse. Science and reason don't exclude disagreement or guarantee that a universally accepted solution or resolution is always possible.

 
I don't however agree with this. An impasse is an impasse, and "credentials" shouldn't sway things one way or the other. It should simply remain an impasse until such time as a better argument or more evidence is brought to the table.
 
se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

There is plenty of inductive reasoning in audio science and discussion so it's not sensible to try to insist on definitions that are specific to deductive reasoning.

 
Can't say I really see much inductive reasoning involved here. Most commonly the discussions here center on responding to faulty deductive reasoning.
 
se

 

[julian67]

I don't however agree with this. An impasse is an impasse, and "credentials" shouldn't sway things one way or the other. It should simply remain an impasse until such time as a better argument or more evidence is brought to the table.

That's OK if you don't need to act at all, or if you have unlimited time. In practice if you are trying to produce something and have two competing arguments of equal merit on how to go about it then you will need to choose one. At that point you look beyond the arguments and examine credentials. Credentials might be composed of academic or professional qualifications, or track record and so on.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

That's OK if you don't need to act at all, or if you have unlimited time. In practice if you are trying to produce something and have two competing arguments of equal merit on how to go about it then you will need to choose one. At that point you look beyond the arguments and examine credentials. Credentials might be composed of academic or professional qualifications, or track record and so on.

 
Keep in mind that the context of this whole discussion is the Sound Science forum, where people are simply trying to get at the truth of things. No real need to act and there is plenty of time.
 
se

 

[julian67]

Can't say I really see much inductive reasoning involved here. Most commonly the discussions here center on responding to faulty deductive reasoning.

se

Lossy compression and psycho acoustics:

"With our codec X the hundred people who performed listening tests mostly couldn't hear a difference. Therefore most people in the wider population won't hear a difference."

etc

That is simplistic but you get the idea I assume. There are huge parts of audio science that are not about deducing a truth but are about making the best inferences and predictions possible. Lossy encoding with a psycho acoustic model is pretty much inductive reasoning in action.

On a discussion board like this you can also find lots of inductive reasoning:

There is no shortage of comments something like "I can't abx #kbps vs #kbps therefore they sound the same. This is transparent for me so it ought to be generally transparent". Or "I can abx codec X from codec Y so other people ought to be able to do the same". Mass public listening tests are more credible than individual tests but in the end they are still all about inference and prediction - inductive reasoning.

So it's really not hard to find inductive reasoning practiced and expressed, sound or unsound

 

[Steve Eddy]

That looks like faulty deductive reasoning to me, not proper inductive reasoning.
 
se

 

[bigshot]

I love the idea of having to be credentialed to participate in an internet discussion forum.

 

[bigshot]

There is no shortage of comments something like "I can't abx #kbps vs #kbps therefore they sound the same. This is transparent for me so it ought to be generally transparent".

My favorite is "I heard a difference using absolutely no controls on my comparison at all. My opinion is just as valid as your opinion based on ABX testing."

 

[julian67]

I love the idea of having to be credentialed to participate in an internet discussion forum.

Nobody has suggested credentials are necessary to take part in an internet discussion forum.

This is a strawman.

 

[julian67]

My favorite is "I heard a difference using absolutely no controls on my comparison at all. My opinion is just as valid as your opinion based on ABX testing."

The bit you quote, completely decontextualised, was part of an attempt to illustrate the presence of inductive reasoning and not about codec testing per se.

To take that snippet and then concoct an irrelevant reply is somewhat bizarre.

 

[bigshot]

I'll defer to your expertise on bizarre behavior. You can defer to my expertise on making jokes.
 
I like you. You make a great straight man.

 

[julian67]

It might be better to offer advance warning before you make a joke. Also make a note to confirm when you're done.

 

[bigshot]

Readddyyyy... Begin!
 

 
I'll let you know when I'm done.

 

[dvw]

I keep seeing words like credential and real engineer been thrown around. But I don't see a lot of misinformation being passed around. Is there lots of non-facts here. I can't speak for others. But I do think I am a real engineer. And there are others that think I'm real enough to pay me. As far as I can see any technical inaccuracy are quickly corrected here. Am I wrong? If pointing out demagnetizing a LP is wrong and without fact, I don't know what kind of credential engineer will support LP demagnetizing is a real scientific fact..

 

[anetode]

Quote:

It has to be spelled out?

Example: in medical matters a doctor's opinion carries more weight than a layman's opinion because it is supported by credentials. Credentials attest to knowledge and experience or expertise, They demonstrate that those qualities have been examined and found present and satisfactory. Credentials attest to credibility.

Opinions backed by credentials carry more weight than other opinions. If Bill Gates offered an opinion on running a philanthropic enterprise or Richard Stallman offered an opinion on how to write a C compiler I would pay attention to them because they have credentials and hence credibility. If an anonymous person on the www offered me the same opinions I would probably want to test those opinions rather more. If those same opinions are offered without credentials but with insults, anger and sleight of hand then the bearer's credibility is zero and the opinion is of no interest or value.

Reasoned arguments may stand or fall on their merits. Name calling, accusations, insults, misleading retrospective edits and special pleading and all the rest do not constitute a reasoned argument.

If people want to present themselves as champions of reason and science but have no credentials they should at least attempt acting rationally and reasonably.

There's a fundamental difference between an elitist perspective which assigns weight to credentials and an egalitarian one which assigns weight to merit. We're talking on an online forum, which is about as egalitarian as it gets, ideally. There's even an added irony to head-fi where users whose credentials are acknowledged by a "Member of the Trade" title have less freedom to discuss their opinions where those opinions concern (or may be misinterpreted to concern) other companies and their products. MOTs who are head-fi sponsors are allowed greater leeway in this respect, yet this credential doesn't imply expertise as much as entrepreneurship and sponsorship.
 
You care about merit and therefore respect reasoned arguments. What if a well reasoned argument is accompanied by an insult or other childish behavior, does that make it any less valid? Your post makes it seem like it does. So you allow credentialed champions of reason and science greater behavioral leeway while criticizing similar behavior when it is exhibited in the confines of a pseudonymous egalitarian forum. Sounds like a double standard.
 
Quote:

Sometimes listeners (patients) given an identically performing or ineffective audio product (inert pill) will still experience a perceived improvement in sound quality (medical condition) - the placebo effect.
 
How is that a weasel or derogatory word?

 
The placebo effect isn't so much an effect as a default explanation for incongruous results in controlled medical testing. Most times it's used here on head-fi as a lazy synonym for cognitive bias. In that respect it is a weasel word, though I think it's pathetic that some find its usage derogatory.
 
 
Quote:

It would be more interesting to examine the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning and see why and how both are present and necessary.

That's a red herring. The scientific method is inductive, not deductive in the absolute sense. To deride sound science for using inductive reasoning is to miss the point entirely.