pdupiano
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Posts
- 1,480
- Likes
- 22
Well sorry the title is BS. obv there isn't one. but I just wanted to see if you'd read this... But while you're here, try this argument out:
1. Science is based on
a. Observations (experience)
b. Reproducibility of a phenomenon
2. Listening to cables is based on
a. Observations (my experience)
b. Reproducibility of a phenomenon (To me)
EDIT: Ok, rereading this I can see the issue I've probably created for myself, underneath this edit, I go on about stating have I not met the scientific requirements of a phenomena -I'm wrong in this account. It isn't scientific, not one bit, It should state, "have I not clearly demonstrated the existence of a phenomenon that allows me to differentitate between cables" So once again, this part is about me domonstrating the existence of the phenomenon, and the second part actually does have something to do with science. Furthermore you might wanna disregard the stuff above this edit. My more recent posts and discussion with other members should be much clearer than this original one.
So now I ask, if I hear something, a change (please insert -soundstage/headstage/frequency response/ what other else you want here) in the way my music sounds because I change the cables. And assuming I hear the same differences while switching from one cable to another. Then have I met the scientific requirements of a phenomena?
1. Did I notice a particular phenomena?
2. Did I repeat the phenomena to the same testing device (Me)?
If no then don't read further because well you're just lying to yourself. But if yes, then ok so now I have this THING, this change in sound.
Now, WHY is it that I must take up the burden of proof? Why am I the one who has to explain this change? Isn't that science's job? Isn't it science that's supposed to experience this phenomena that occurs over and over again? Additionally, isn't it science's job to explain why it doesn't occur in other people?
Why is the burden of proof on the people who experience the phenomena?
If I could see ultra-violet rays, and scientists test if I can actually see it (by shining a visible light + extension to ultraviolet rays on a white board) and I do see it, in fact I point it out. Are scientists gonna call me a lier? Are they going to say, oh no you have to prove that the UV light thing that your pointing at exists. Or is it up to the scientist to explain to me how I am seeing UV light? The reason I brought this up is because there is a case of a girl that was able to see beyond violet, and she correctly pointed out the location of the light on a board where they shined the light spectrum. Basically she saw UBER violet just a notch above violet I guess.
But now you have audiophiles and audio-notso-philes who claim they hear something different when they switch cables. Not only that but they are infact able to hear differences in cables. While you yourself cannot do this, why is it then that the audiophile must be the one with the burden of proof? How exactly do you prove an experience that you have? Its a trap if you ask me to use science -because science may not know why yet - and I can't use science to explain if science doesn't have that piece of information. Additionally, isn't it then on science to tell me what I'm hearing? Its a repeatable phenomena and its something that I can even demonstrate to be affecting my music (by blindly testing as pyrokid mentions in his thread here or whatever method you would like).
So I now ask....
Why is science not looking for the answer but instead, why are members of this forum using science to disprove my experiences when you in fact can't disprove an experience.
Ok that's all folks, back to the quibbling and bickering.
1. Science is based on
a. Observations (experience)
b. Reproducibility of a phenomenon
2. Listening to cables is based on
a. Observations (my experience)
b. Reproducibility of a phenomenon (To me)
EDIT: Ok, rereading this I can see the issue I've probably created for myself, underneath this edit, I go on about stating have I not met the scientific requirements of a phenomena -I'm wrong in this account. It isn't scientific, not one bit, It should state, "have I not clearly demonstrated the existence of a phenomenon that allows me to differentitate between cables" So once again, this part is about me domonstrating the existence of the phenomenon, and the second part actually does have something to do with science. Furthermore you might wanna disregard the stuff above this edit. My more recent posts and discussion with other members should be much clearer than this original one.
So now I ask, if I hear something, a change (please insert -soundstage/headstage/frequency response/ what other else you want here) in the way my music sounds because I change the cables. And assuming I hear the same differences while switching from one cable to another. Then have I met the scientific requirements of a phenomena?
1. Did I notice a particular phenomena?
2. Did I repeat the phenomena to the same testing device (Me)?
If no then don't read further because well you're just lying to yourself. But if yes, then ok so now I have this THING, this change in sound.
Now, WHY is it that I must take up the burden of proof? Why am I the one who has to explain this change? Isn't that science's job? Isn't it science that's supposed to experience this phenomena that occurs over and over again? Additionally, isn't it science's job to explain why it doesn't occur in other people?
Why is the burden of proof on the people who experience the phenomena?
If I could see ultra-violet rays, and scientists test if I can actually see it (by shining a visible light + extension to ultraviolet rays on a white board) and I do see it, in fact I point it out. Are scientists gonna call me a lier? Are they going to say, oh no you have to prove that the UV light thing that your pointing at exists. Or is it up to the scientist to explain to me how I am seeing UV light? The reason I brought this up is because there is a case of a girl that was able to see beyond violet, and she correctly pointed out the location of the light on a board where they shined the light spectrum. Basically she saw UBER violet just a notch above violet I guess.
But now you have audiophiles and audio-notso-philes who claim they hear something different when they switch cables. Not only that but they are infact able to hear differences in cables. While you yourself cannot do this, why is it then that the audiophile must be the one with the burden of proof? How exactly do you prove an experience that you have? Its a trap if you ask me to use science -because science may not know why yet - and I can't use science to explain if science doesn't have that piece of information. Additionally, isn't it then on science to tell me what I'm hearing? Its a repeatable phenomena and its something that I can even demonstrate to be affecting my music (by blindly testing as pyrokid mentions in his thread here or whatever method you would like).
So I now ask....
Why is science not looking for the answer but instead, why are members of this forum using science to disprove my experiences when you in fact can't disprove an experience.
Ok that's all folks, back to the quibbling and bickering.