[SilentNote]

None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion. What you are outlining here is people drawing battle lines for defending and attacking arguments, and that has nothing to do with science. It is what people think science does, but that is not how things work. Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements. It is the polar opposite of what a stimulating, open and creative platform for scientific discussions should look like.

I don't understand your take on science. Are you implying that researchers and scientists should not do their research (preparation) before presentation of their paper? That's absurdity.

Some degree of understanding and preparation is necessary otherwise everyone will just be discussing about opinions.

And no it's not prepare or be roasted. It is the lack of preparation that gets them roasted in an intellectual discussion, as they have nothing more to say other than their opinions. Their opinions is no better than my opinions so then we are just going around exchanging opinions and will never really come to an understanding based at least in some real world observation or results!

To argue that some degree of preparations is unnecessary, and that opinions itself is sufficient basis for scientific discourse, is absurdity.

 

[Wyville]

I’ve seen few examples here where posts are shot down prior to the poster being given the opportunity to present a case better than a purely subjective opinion. Once that opportunity is ignored and the subjective opinion doubled down on, many, myself included, feel insulted.

The recent discussion is a prototypical example. How many times can requests for any form of objective data be ignored and why is the problem with those asking for it?

Sorry about what? Merely reproducing audio with high fidelity is simpler than you think. The state of the art today is on manipulating audio with ever higher degrees of sophistication.

But the HiFi salesmen would break everything back down to the stone ages so they can start over if they have their way.

It's actually been going like this in many other scientific fields lately.

Most people don't believe we actually ever went to the moon anymore.

Vaccines are getting de-invented.

The more set in stone the conclusions of climate science are to actual researchers in the field, the more discredited it is in the public eye.

The list goes on...

The problem is that there are underlying issues that complicate matters, which have mostly to do with a misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. If you want to address issues in a constructive and scientifically informed manner, then this is not the way to do it.

 

[Wyville]

I don't understand your take on science. Are you implying that researchers and scientists should not do their research (preparation) before presentation of their paper? That's absurdity.

Some degree of understanding and preparation is necessary otherwise everyone will just be discussing about opinions.

And no it's not prepare or be roasted. It is the lack of preparation that gets them roasted in an intellectual discussion, as they have nothing more to say other than their opinions. Their opinions is no better than my opinions so then we are just going around exchanging opinions and will never really come to an understanding based at least in some real world observation or results!

To argue that some degree of preparations is unnecessary, and that opinions itself is sufficient basis for scientific discourse, is absurdity.

Not implying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that what you do here is not science, it is Cargo Cult Science. The arguments presented here lack the depth of understanding, thoroughness, and integrity needed. The problem is that most people here are so convinced that they know how science works that they keep fooling themselves and never actually get to the good stuff (ie. genuine science).

 

[taffy2207]

Wasn't this thread on topic once?

 

[SilentNote]

Wasn't this thread on topic once?

I created a new thread here:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...lation-to-sound-science.913195/#post-15129375

Hopefully this topic will stop getting derailed.

 

[gregorio]

[1] None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion.
[2] Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements.

1. Agreed, it's only necessary if you're going to actually contradict the established/proven science. Anyone can easily avoid this, for example by asking questions instead of making claims/assertions or, by making assertions which do not contradict the science but if you are going to contradict it, then you'll need to be prepared with reliable supporting evidence!

2. What's wrong with rigid dogmatic statements? What's wrong for example, with the rigid dogmatic statement that the earth isn't flat or that pigs can't fly? Rigid dogmatic statements are only a problem if they're false/incorrect.

G

 

[sonitus mirus]

1. Agreed, it's only necessary if you're going to actually contradict the established/proven science. Anyone can easily avoid this, for example by asking questions instead of making claims/assertions or, by making assertions which do not contradict the science but if you are going to contradict it, then you'll need to be prepared with reliable supporting evidence!

2. What's wrong with rigid dogmatic statements? What's wrong for example, with the rigid dogmatic statement that the earth isn't flat or that pigs can't fly? Rigid dogmatic statements are only a problem if they're false/incorrect.

G

A dogmatic statement such as those leaves no room for hunches or subjective experiences where hordes of ignorant folks all take comfort from groupthink and businesses are more than willing to take advantage of the situation and bolster these ideas for profit. You know the drill. This discussion is leading to the inevitable claim that we don't know everything and something unknown could be responsible for differences that have not even been reliably established to exist at all, let alone significantly obvious differences.

 

[KeithEmo]

I agree entirely....

I agree that pseudoscience is a big problem... but so is allowing actual science to drift into pure dogma.

Real science is an ongoing process of learning things, and then testing and refining what we know, which often results in having to adjust that knowledge.
In the past, many scientists did detailed studies about the limits of human hearing, using tuning forks and sine waves.
As a result, we knew a lot more about human hearing than we knew before those tests were performed...
However, we didn't suddenly know everything that there was to be known...
And, in fact, we may still not know it all...

When I went to high school we "knew" that all matter was made up of small indivisible particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons....
Nowadays, most people know that this was just a simple and somewhat effective model, but matter really isn't that way at all...

And, back then, we "knew" that our entire "genetic inheritance" was contained in the DNA strands in our genes (which were "a complete blueprint")...
But, nowadays, (if we keep up on our reading), we know that it's not nearly that simple, and that some genetic information is carried by other mechanisms...

I absolutely agree that pseudoscience is a big problem...
And one that seems to be becoming worse lately... especially in the audio field...
However, that's still no excuse to suggest that we should stop ALL exploration and discovery and fall back on dogma...

I'm pretty sure that the guys who did all those tests a century ago had neither R2R nor D-S DACs....
Therefore, they probably had neither the inclination nor the ability to test whether the differences between them were audible or not....
(In fact, with a foundation in tuning forks and steady state sine waves, they probably never even imagined things like data-correlated errors and error masking.)

And I'm pretty sure that the pioneers of information theory would have laughed at the idea that lossy compression could actually work transparently.
In general, information theory considers problems like storing or transmitting a given amount of information in the minimum bandwidth possible.
It usually does NOT address the idea that certain information is "psycho-acoustically expendable" and we can save bandwidth by simply discarding it.
(By their equations the information in a typical AAC or MP3 file "just plain wouldn't fit in the available bandwidth".)

I'll bet, if you look back far enough, you can find articles debunking "acoustically transparent lossy compression" as "a nice idea but not possible in practice".
(But I guess we're lucky nobody was convinced enough to stop trying...)

While explaining basic science to beginners definitely has its place...
I'd personally rather discuss things that go beyond "Basic Audio Science for Beginners 101"...
Even if some of the things that get discussed end up being disproven... or debunked... or just plain silly... because that's also part of science.
(And, yes, we may have to explore a few dead ends in order to have any chance of making any actual progress.)

Not implying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that what you do here is not science, it is Cargo Cult Science. The arguments presented here lack the depth of understanding, thoroughness, and integrity needed. The problem is that most people here are so convinced that they know how science works that they keep fooling themselves and never actually get to the good stuff (ie. genuine science).

 

[KeithEmo]

Your second statement is an excellent example of an oxymoron...
And also an excellent example of where the risk lies...

On the first point, that the Earth is not flat, I think that most of us agree.
(And most of may even realize that it isn't actually a perfect sphere either.)

However, in point of fact, there have been any number of examples provided showing that pigs do occasionally fly.
I suspect that it would be accurate to state that "non-genetically modified pigs cannot fly using their own wings and muscle power"...
However, instead, you have chosen to overstate the claim, and in such a way that it can easily be shown to be FALSE.

For example, I didn't have to stop laughing very long to find this on Google:
The first historically recorded flight of a pig took place on British soil, at Leysdown in Kent on November 4th, 1909.
The pig was carried aloft by J.T.C. Moore-Brabazon, later the First Lord Brabazon of Tara, in his personal French-built Voisin aero plane.
https://www.porkopolis.org/2008/first-pig-to-fly/
(the web page includes a black and white photo of the pig on his first flight)

While I would agree that making absolute claims, in contradiction of well established science, should include some form of proof to be taken seriously...
Suggesting that "established science" might be wrong... and needs further testing... is a time honored tradition... and one of the reasons why science is right so often...
(Statistically speaking, of all the people over the years who claimed that "what you know is wrong", a certain number have in fact turned out to be correct.)

1. Agreed, it's only necessary if you're going to actually contradict the established/proven science. Anyone can easily avoid this, for example by asking questions instead of making claims/assertions or, by making assertions which do not contradict the science but if you are going to contradict it, then you'll need to be prepared with reliable supporting evidence!

2. What's wrong with rigid dogmatic statements? What's wrong for example, with the rigid dogmatic statement that the earth isn't flat or that pigs can't fly? Rigid dogmatic statements are only a problem if they're false/incorrect.

G

 

[chaos215bar2]

@KeithEmo, come join the fun here!

 

[bigshot]

troublemaker!

 

[bfreedma]

Your second statement is an excellent example of an oxymoron...
And also an excellent example of where the risk lies...

On the first point, that the Earth is not flat, I think that most of us agree.
(And most of may even realize that it isn't actually a perfect sphere either.)

However, in point of fact, there have been any number of examples provided showing that pigs do occasionally fly.
I suspect that it would be accurate to state that "non-genetically modified pigs cannot fly using their own wings and muscle power"...
However, instead, you have chosen to overstate the claim, and in such a way that it can easily be shown to be FALSE.

For example, I didn't have to stop laughing very long to find this on Google:
The first historically recorded flight of a pig took place on British soil, at Leysdown in Kent on November 4th, 1909.
The pig was carried aloft by J.T.C. Moore-Brabazon, later the First Lord Brabazon of Tara, in his personal French-built Voisin aero plane.
https://www.porkopolis.org/2008/first-pig-to-fly/
(the web page includes a black and white photo of the pig on his first flight)

While I would agree that making absolute claims, in contradiction of well established science, should include some form of proof to be taken seriously...
Suggesting that "established science" might be wrong... and needs further testing... is a time honored tradition... and one of the reasons why science is right so often...
(Statistically speaking, of all the people over the years who claimed that "what you know is wrong", a certain number have in fact turned out to be correct.)

When you say you had eggs for breakfast, do you qualify it by stating it's an "unfertilized chicken egg not including it's shell" or do you assume people will make the correct assessment unless unusual qualifiers are stated? If you had an ostrich or turtle egg for breakfast, I'm willing to assume you would mention it.

I believe the same level of standard assumptions exist when discussing "flying pigs" and many other typical points of discussion. I don't think we need to be pedantic - we should all have the intellectual honesty to state any unusual scenarios/qualifiers when they exist.

 

[bigshot]

I get very weary with semantics. That's usually a smoke screen to cover up lack of any worthwhile points to make. I feel the same way about irrelevant analogies, reducto ad absurdum, and appeal to ignorance.

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

On the first point, that the Earth is not flat, I think that most of us agree. (And most of may even realize that it isn't actually a perfect sphere either.)

While I would agree that making absolute claims, in contradiction of well established science, should include some form of proof to be taken seriously...
Suggesting that "established science" might be wrong... and needs further testing... is a time honored tradition... and one of the reasons why science is right so often...
(Statistically speaking, of all the people over the years who claimed that "what you know is wrong", a certain number have in fact turned out to be correct.)

That last point has also meant many have been dragged over coals - the history of many who have had to suffer in order to benefit mankind is depressing.

Yes, there are flakes, yes there are crooks, yes the innocent needs to be protected from them. But there is also a danger that we might miss out on something important.

The danger is that the reactionary Pendulum swings too far!

Couple that, we seem to be living in an age of anger bordering on an age of rage. So the opposite can be just as dangerous and maybe even more so?

I am struck by the fact that you now have to be more brave than ever before. And your motive will be questioned: "So you think you are so great?" while putting on a pedestal the Einsteins of the past while skewering the possible Einsteins of the future.

On another forum elsewhere, I tried to suggest an alternative way of looking at the interface between the amplifier acting as a "voltage" source and the speaker as a "current" device - it is a known compatibility problem. I presented a very powerful 'equivalence' test (it can be tested even in software) and predictive maths that was spot on in every case. It was 100% accurate and very revealing. I showed it to some extremely capable people first and thought I was on safe ground. I was not.

I was basically accused of being a New Age nutjob. It got vicious, then it got malicious and then they resorted to slander accusing me of stealing. There was no limit, the moderation was weak and disappointing. I can see why some unwary souls on the internet can be driven into depression and worse, especially if they are younger. But I have 40 years experience. But the internet can be dangerous to your mental health.

From here on, if anybody insists on "proof" does not mean they want it. The tone will give it away every time. Even showing incredibly powerful proof meant nothing.

A reasonable person does not demand proof, he demands explanations. He opens up the discussion, he does not kill it.

So disappointed about missing out the flying pig achievement. Someone beat me to it. Sigh.

 

[old tech]

A reasonable person does not demand proof, he demands explanations. He opens up the discussion, he does not kill it.

But wouldn't a simple request for evidence which supports your claim open up a discussion, particularly over claims which contradict the science behind digital audio? Wouldn't that evidence, if it does exist, open up a new and exciting world of new discoveries?

For example, if someone wanted to claim that gravity pulls rather than sucks there hardly will be any discussion as most people would would write that person off as a crank. However, if that person provided some credible evidence to back up that claim, there would be massive discussions, perhaps even a full house Nobel award presentation.

So, are you going to provide some credible evidence or not?