[gregorio]

Would calling someone a "great steaming prevaricator" be going too far?

G

 

[Indiana]

Scientists try to understand things. They are looking for explanations that make sense. And try to prove these things. Our most important tool of knowledge is mathematics. Therefore, I would never get the idea to participate in a blind test between "HighRes" and Redbook. I would feel like Don Quixote. But I've never been very passionate about audio anyway.

 

[bigshot]

I'm passionate about music, which wouldn't exist without audio!

 

[KeithEmo]

Perhaps, if you're absolutely certain that someone is lying, the best way to deal it would be to produce PROOF that they're lying.
And, if you try really hard, but can't come up with any such proof, then maybe you should concede that they actually may not be lying after all.
Or maybe you should settle for: "I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work, and it seems downright doubtful to me, but I can't prove it".
Or perhaps even: "I'm not aware of anybody doing that today, and it doesn't seem especially useful, so I'm not really interested".
(And, to be honest, trying to imagine ever more creative ways to accuse someone of being a liar, without being caught doing so, seems a bit counterproductive.)

We just need to come up with euphemism words... W C Fields said that he "prevaricated". Would that be OK to use instead of "lying"?

 

[gregorio]

Perhaps, if you're absolutely certain that someone is lying, the best way to deal it would be to produce PROOF that they're lying.

But what if we produce proof and they carry on lying anyway, there's nothing in the rules here to stop him. In fact, the obvious solution for this liar would be to bait the proof provider into calling him a liar, by simply repeating the same lies in every post and making-up a few new ones that the liar knows will be particularly galling, then get the proof provider sanctioned for calling him a liar and then the liar has more freedom to continue lying without being so strongly challenged (with the actual facts) all the time, problem managed, salary earned! Of course, that's just a theory.

G

 

[Phronesis]

But what if we produce proof and they carry on lying anyway, there's nothing in the rules here to stop him. In fact, the obvious solution for this liar would be to bait the proof provider into calling him a liar, by simply repeating the same lies in every post and making-up a few new ones that the liar knows will be particularly galling, then get the proof provider sanctioned for calling him a liar and then the liar has more freedom to continue lying without being so strongly challenged (with the actual facts) all the time, problem managed, salary earned! Of course, that's just a theory.

G

Or maybe take a chill pill and stop making mountains out of molehills while crying that the sky is falling. Thanksgiving is almost here, and we all have things to be thankful for, so maybe try having an attitude of gratitude for the rest of the week and drop the pettiness.

 

[bigshot]

I'm thankful that I don't have to make up completely fabricated theories to protect my fragile ego. I'm thankful that I can allow myself to learn from people who know things I don't know about. I'm thankful that Castle has more patience than any of the rest of us.

 

[castleofargh]

Head-fi's priority is for people to treat each other with respect when they discuss. you don't have to believe it when you write with respect(or at least without blatant insults), just like you don't have to actually like your boss when you pretend to. same reason why people still pretend to like it when you tell them some crap about your kid. we keep social appearances even in totally hypocritical ways, even if it's obvious to us all. because that's the best solution under given circumstances. doing otherwise would almost certainly have bad and lasting consequences, so we suck it up and move on. making a fake smile once in a while isn't killing anybody.
it's the same thing on Head-fi. you avoid attacking people. you try not to openly insult them. you avoid bringing up politic or religion. and you make your posts in English even when it's not your native language. all that is done so you can stay on Head-fi. respect people, or pretend real well, I personally don't care. I'm not a mind moderator.

now because this is Sound Science we have an extra reason not to claim that somebody's a liar. the same reason not to make any claim, lack of evidence. we have to:
1/ prove without a doubt that something stated is false. and just saying it is and we know it is false, that isn't enough. we don't accept that as evidence from others, so why should we accept it from ourselves?
2/ once 1/ is indeed demonstrated, we still have to prove that the person stating the false idea, knows that he's wrong but says it anyway. this one is tricky IMO. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...why-people-stick-their-beliefs-no-matter-what how often can I claim that someone else(or myself) isn't in this situation of simply having a hard time absorbing contradicting information? and if we have at least 2 possibilities(and we have more, such a plain old ignorance or misunderstanding), then surely we have to be able to eliminate those hypotheses before concluding there was voluntary lie involved.

 

[bigshot]

I think there is sometimes a third thing to consider... Internet forums tend to attract people with certain biological conditions that hinder their communication skills and can make them speak in a manner that they don't intend to. It's very hard to recognize those people without face to face contact, but when I suspect that is the case, I just give them a wide berth and try not to cause them trouble. Not everyone realizes that there are people like this participating sometimes, and it's a taboo subject for discussion, so they don't know to cut certain people some slack. I don't know if there is a solution to that.

There are outright trolls hiding behind their keyboards too. Once I identify them, I don't give them slack. I don't see any reason to give respect to someone who is disrespecting me deliberately.

 

[KeithEmo]

That's easy.....

If any compelling proof were produced by either side, then it would be obvious to everyone who saw that proof which side was right, and the debate would be over.
And, if no such evidence actually exists, then we can only conclude that we simply have conflicting theories.
If something is actually untrue, rather than simply unknown, then it should be pretty easy to prove that using actual evidence.
(And, no, the fact that nobody has done something so far in no way constitutes evidence that it cannot be done.)

It's also true that, when it comes to new science, finding actual proof can often be expensive and time consuming.
(Because of this, some questions may never be answered, if nobody is willing to budget the necessary funds to conduct the required research.)
For example, the question of whether "gravity waves" actually exist and can be detected has been debated for a long time.
However, the fact that nobody succeeded in detecting and documenting them for years didn't prove that they didn't exist.
It just proved that, up until that point, nobody had succeeded in detecting them.
So all they could do was to list the ways they'd tried, and failed, to detect them so far.
Now, finally, after several decades of research, and several failed research projects, the latest attempt to detect and measure gravity waves has finally succeeded.
(So I guess we're lucky nobody assumed they didn't exist after the first few attempts to detect them failed.)

In real science, we are often faced with situations where things simply remain unknown...
It's not that big a deal.
However, it is logically flawed to simply label everything that hasn't been done yet as "impossible".

I'm passionate about music, which wouldn't exist without audio!

But what if we produce proof and they carry on lying anyway, there's nothing in the rules here to stop him. In fact, the obvious solution for this liar would be to bait the proof provider into calling him a liar, by simply repeating the same lies in every post and making-up a few new ones that the liar knows will be particularly galling, then get the proof provider sanctioned for calling him a liar and then the liar has more freedom to continue lying without being so strongly challenged (with the actual facts) all the time, problem managed, salary earned! Of course, that's just a theory.

G

 

[Indiana]

If any compelling proof were produced by either side, then it would be obvious to everyone who saw that proof which side was right, and the debate would be over.
And, if no such evidence actually exists, then we can only conclude that we simply have conflicting theories.

What kind of debate? There is in fact no debate. And you did not present a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. And there are also no two sides. The only one point I disagree with Gregorio: This is for sure not a science forum.

 

[bigshot]

I love it when my quotes are used without any context whatsoever.

 

[Arpiben]

That's easy.....

If any compelling proof were produced by either side, then it would be obvious to everyone who saw that proof which side was right, and the debate would be over.
And, if no such evidence actually exists, then we can only conclude that we simply have conflicting theories.
If something is actually untrue, rather than simply unknown, then it should be pretty easy to prove that using actual evidence.
(And, no, the fact that nobody has done something so far in no way constitutes evidence that it cannot be done.)

It's also true that, when it comes to new science, finding actual proof can often be expensive and time consuming.
(Because of this, some questions may never be answered, if nobody is willing to budget the necessary funds to conduct the required research.)
For example, the question of whether "gravity waves" actually exist and can be detected has been debated for a long time.
However, the fact that nobody succeeded in detecting and documenting them for years didn't prove that they didn't exist.
It just proved that, up until that point, nobody had succeeded in detecting them.
So all they could do was to list the ways they'd tried, and failed, to detect them so far.
Now, finally, after several decades of research, and several failed research projects, the latest attempt to detect and measure gravity waves has finally succeeded.
(So I guess we're lucky nobody assumed they didn't exist after the first few attempts to detect them failed.)

In real science, we are often faced with situations where things simply remain unknown...
It's not that big a deal.
However, it is logically flawed to simply label everything that hasn't been done yet as "impossible".

It took almost one year and a half for computing the data in LIGO gravitational's observation. I am just wondering how many years any consumer computer will need to retrieve your wished reverb ultrasonic information?

 

[bigshot]

Put NASA on the job! It isn't a measurement if a person can't interpret it without a computer's help.

 

[gregorio]

now because this is Sound Science we have an extra reason not to claim that somebody's a liar. the same reason not to make any claim, lack of evidence. we have to:
1/ prove without a doubt that something stated is false. and just saying it is and we know it is false, that isn't enough. we don't accept that as evidence from others, so why should we accept it from ourselves?
2/ once 1/ is indeed demonstrated, we still have to prove that the person stating the false idea, knows that he's wrong but says it anyway. this one is tricky IMO. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...why-people-stick-their-beliefs-no-matter-what how often can I claim that someone else(or myself) isn't in this situation of simply having a hard time absorbing contradicting information? and if we have at least 2 possibilities(and we have more, such a plain old ignorance or misunderstanding), then surely we have to be able to eliminate those hypotheses before concluding there was voluntary lie involved.

I agree entirely but I didn't come to that conclusion lightly, it wasn't just a case of me not liking the assertions made and responding in the heat of the moment with an emotional insult, I effectively followed your two points:

1/ I provided the published scientific evidence that science doesn't currently even have a theory to achieve what was being asserted as achievable already. I provided scientific evidence that the percentage of information >20kHz produced by instruments is a tiny fraction of their total information/energy. Obviously science can't prove a negative, I can't prove there is no acoustic information above 20kHz on every one of the hundred million or so commercial audio recordings released over the last 60 years or so. But, supported by the fact that he hasn't managed to provide even a single example, I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that acoustic information above 20kHz is, at the very least, exceedingly rare. Additionally, I've used just about all of the professional reverb processors over the last 20+ years and never seen one that produced anything higher than about 12kHz and this fact has not been challenged. Therefore, even if I'm wrong and there are some recordings with >20kHz acoustic information, we're talking about developing some future technology for consumers that at best *might* be able to work about 0.1% of the time and probably 0% of the time (and this is assuming that the extracted >20kHz acoustic information is actually useful rather than misleading). Clearly, developing a consumer product that even in the best case would only work a tiny fraction of the time, is not a viable commercial proposition. However, as you say, none of this or the other facts provided proves lying has occurred, it may only have proved ignorance, a false belief and an unwillingness or inability to accept the evidence/facts. Which brings us to:

2/ There are several supporting points here: Firstly, the ignorance defence is only applicable for so long. Once the refuting evidence has been provided, then the person is no longer ignorant of the facts. Of course, they may not understand those facts/evidence or they may choose not to accept them but they are now at least aware that their assertions are being challenged with some sort of evidence and, they are also aware that they are continuing to make their assertions without any supporting evidence of their own! Still not absolute proof of lying but the evidence is starting to stack up. Secondly, we have many examples of supporting assertions being changed 180deg, depending on whether they support or contradict his agenda. I detailed a couple of particularly obvious examples; Pages were spent arguing that the analysis of acoustic information was trivially easy, even listing the commercial software that apparently can achieve this feat but when another member stated they were unable to find the supposed acoustic information, just a few days later, the response was that he knew of no commercial software which could achieve that exact same feat, so how did the member know there was no acoustic information there. Or, the assertion that I was wrong for eliminating a fraction of a percent of the information from an analysis but that he was correct in eliminating >99% of it. There are numerous other examples, just yesterday for example: He wrote various posts (and repeated them) detailing how a 90kHz bias tone has been used to correct wow and flutter tape flaws but then, when he needs to support another assertion about random noise, that single tone is magically not a single tone any more, it's suddenly random noise, despite the fact that the process he detailed and is using to support his agenda ONLY works precisely because it is a single constant tone and couldn't work if it were random noise. Thirdly, he just (accidentally/fortuitously?) ignores or misquotes responses. Fourthly, he's not a newbie here, I'm sure he's read a great deal of information here over the years and additionally, he's a member of the trade. He must surely have at least a basic working knowledge of sound and audio? So how can he be so ignorant of it or accidentally get so much of it wrong? For example, does he really not know that sound behaves very differently in water than in air and therefore that his Navy analogy is incorrect/inappropriate?

None of these points (and many others besides) individually prove beyond doubt that he is lying, but all of them in combination? At what stage do we reach the critical mass of "overwhelming evidence", of there being no other reasonable explanation? Obviously, that stage is different for everyone, it depends on the false assertions/analogies/fallacies presented and our personal knowledge/experience that enables us to identify those assertions as false. Many/Most of the false assertions made were effectively regarding what is recorded, how it's recorded and how it's edited, mixed and mastered after it's recorded, which are my personal areas of expertise. Therefore, it's likely that I will reach that stage of "overwhelming evidence" before many others, some of whom may never reach it because they do not recognise enough of the falsehoods to reach that "critical mass". To them it would appear that I'm jumping to conclusions and making a very serious accusation with insufficient evidence, that maybe I have some agenda or other which is causing me to be unjust/unfair, especially as he seems to be a very decent, reasonable guy and the opposite of what I'm accusing him of!

G