Quote:
Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This was not my argument. You said:
I said:
It is irrelevant that you add the caveat 'to me'; you've nonetheless analogised to an empirical process in defending your claim of cable differences. That is, you've indicated your belief is based upon some defensible claim of observation.
Attempting to disclaim this by stating 'I PROPOSE NO SCIENTIFIC TRUTH', followed by stating that you are 'demonstrating the existence of a phenomena [you] detect is essentially contradictory. You're basically telling me that, while you make no claims about the existence of something, you make claims about the existence of something. This is because you are already from the start claiming that your basis of proof is observation, and making affirmative ontological statements regarding it. To then attempt to deflect any substantive criticism of your statement by 'proposing no scientific truth', when such a statement necessarily includes negative ontological inferences, is contradictory.
Narrating expected results to a proposed means of testing your perception is not proof of any sort. I have no idea why you even added this.
It is not error to suggest that you will need to do more than simply tell me what you observed in order to prove the existence of a phenomenon. Science is not some sort of weird out-there-in-the-ether irrelevant tool that is unconcerned with subjective phenomenology. Science is about disciplining empirical methodology. To fail to conform to scientific methodology in an empirical proof simply invites criticism since you haven't really told us a whole lot about actual causation. Instead, you've made a conjecture about it and taken it for granted that your experience alone is sufficient proof, which is not really any sort of proof at all.
To tell us that your bare statement that you hear something is 'demonstration' of existence, in and of itself, is simply false. I assume this is not what you mean. Unless you have a dramatically different idea of 'exists' than people normally associate with the word, stating something exists, based on observation, in the manner you have presented, is an inductive argument.
It seems you are essentially telling me that science cannot disprove subjective experience, since there isn't inter-subjective observation. While at least arguably true in a limited sense, it's largely irrelevant to the issue of proof that you are attempting to offer.
By suggesting that cables make a difference, you are making statements that extend further than a pure subjective sort of domain. In other words, it's a statement no one should care about if you honestly expect that the property is not inter-subjectively transitive (e.g. others would hear such a thing). Thus, to retreat to an argument that science cannot touch your subjectivity is, while in some limited sense true, completely lethal to your overall project of suggesting that cables are significant.
If the hypothetical colorblind man could demonstrate that he could not, in fact, see color, that process would necessarily involve falsifying alternative theses such as that he is lying, mistaken about the names of colours, and so forth. The existence of colorblindness was proven scientifically, and is diagnosed scientifically. Your argument here, if anything, largely demonstrates the point.
Claiming cables make a substantive difference necessarily involves at a minimum some sort of claim of inter-subjective relevance, and once you reach that point, science is relevant. I don't understand why you think the role of science is to explain pre-theoretical notions of what exists. That isn't how science works; that's how, at best, pseudoscience works. Science is simply a regimented proof methodology for managing competing theses about a particular physical phenomenon. As such, it's entirely relevant unless you mean to tell me that you don't take seriously the idea that what you're talking about is actually either (a) caused by cables or (b) audible by anyone else. I doubt you're suggesting this, so your argument here essentially offers you absolutely no defense of your position.
If you cannot empirically prove something to the rigors of scientific methodology, then you are inviting criticism of your methodology because it fails to exclusively support your thesis. In other words, you fail to give people good reason to think that your claim of audibility cannot reasonably be explained by something other than that it is (a) caused by cables or (b) is based on an actual physical phenomenon.
Ironically, other parts of your argument concede this very point, because you've already gone on at considerable length about some prospective blind test. To even suggest such a thing indicates at least some basic supposition that you need to falsify alternative explanations, such as that you are imagining it and would not notice the difference if you could not see the cables. Thus, to then retreat to an argument over whether science can touch a dualist conception of subjective experience is so fundamentally self-effacing I really don't understand the point of it.
Anyhow, I'm not going to pursue a mega post-off over this. You seem very committed to the discussion, and I appreciate that, but I honestly don't have the time or stamina to give such large posts the necessary level of attention. I hope this is understandable; I tried to at least be thorough in this response to you
|
In response to your post
1. I make no contradictions with regards to the observation of a phenomenon and the claim that science cannot disprove the phenomenon. I do not use science (though it may resemble science) to demonstrate that there exists a phenomenon such that I am able to discern among different cables. That is largely the point of illustrating my examples, it is to show that portion that allows others to realize that I am detecting something. While the demonstration does lend itself into a quasi scientific method (but there is no hypothesis or real experiment here) I'm simply using a repeatable test of the presence of such a phenomenon. As I state -there is no scientific claim in this demonstration of the existence of a phenomenon. This further negates your comments regarding a solipsistic view of my experience as a matter of truth rather than something that I must demonstrate. Through the demonstration and the proposed hypothetical test - I think I have clearly shown that the phenomenon is not merely true because I say it is, I demonstrate its existence. I make no scientific claims that it exists, I merely demonstrate it. Furthermore, my point is that science cannot disprove my claim of its existence should it be demonstrable.
2. You misunderstand what I state science cannot disprove, and have fallen into the trap that many others have. When people make claims that science or scientific methodology tells us that we cannot hear a difference in cables, what they are in fact telling you is that Science or scientific methodology is disproving your claim of observing a phenomenon. My entire argument is to show that science cannot do that and you even admit it. Now you state that this is irrelevant, I don't think it is. People are using the credibility and the name of science (although these methods of testing that people conduct are at best psuedo scientific due to reasons I outlined in another post regarding the instrument and specific phenomenon to be tested) to make claims that people cannot hear differences in cables -This is something that they cannot do. The true motive behind all of this. It is to end this quibbling with regards to someone saying "Oh but science tells you that you can't hear a difference in cables."
3. The existence of colorblindness was proven by science, but the observation of such a phenomenon (by the person who experienced color blindness) could not have been proven or disproven by science. At best a scientist would test to see if it was a demonstrable observation, and then performed tests to determine what phenomenon would result in such an odd observation. When people here "test" cables with DBT or whatever else you'd like to use, they are testing their observation, they can't do that. All that they can do is ask them to demonstrate their ability to distinguish between cables. Assuming they can, science has no alternative but to accept, barring in light of a repeatable demonstration, that the phenomenon must exist and must take this to be truth. Notice that the person demonstrating the existence of the phenomenon proves nothing with regards to cables or the physical characterstics. His burden is to simply show that his observations are repeatable, and a repeatable observation to ONE PERSON is not science and please do not misconstrue it as such.
4. Lastly realize that when people do DBT, they are in fact taking part in the lay-man's science (I don't know of a better way to word it, sorry). What they lack are the following
1. Testable Phenomenon:
-For something to truly follow the scientific method, you must test an observation. The problem with what people have done here in the forums is that they have already assumed people have this ability to distinguish between cables and they create this test set up (perhaps something similar to what I have described). Now ask yourself what are they testing? Are they testing the phenomenon that they assumed existed (by proceeding to conduct a DBT)? or are they in fact testing the perception of the phenomenon or perhaps even the existence of the phenomenon itself. See the issue is that people are doing the latter, they are not testing the phenomenon, they are testing the observation. So ultimately this test, while scientific in nature, lacks a testable observation -it is in fact putting the cart in front of the horse and testing the existence of the observation. As I have, through long lengths, tried to claim, is impossible because science cannot prove or disprove an observation. The only thing that can occur is that the person perceiving the observation is able to clearly demonstrate that they observe it and that it leads them to differentiate between the cables. There is nothing scientific in that, it is outside the realm of science to prove/disprove experiences.
2. Proper test equipment/test design
-All scientific tests begin with finding a phenomenon, and the issue here is that when people do DBT cable related tests, they are using people's ears to once again test the existence of the phenomenon. In all of these tests, there have been no specifically designed instruments for the purpose of determining what the phenomenon is, and how it comes about. Please note that there is a difference here, what the phenomenon is and the phenomenon's existence are two different questions. Although Science cannot work along the lines of proving the existence of the observation, it does have the ability (after the demonstration of the existence of an observation) to explain what it is and how it comes about. But the issue here is that there are no scientific equipments or testing methodologies to determine what this phenomenon is, there are only tests designed (and used by a majority of headfiers here) to determine the existence of the phenomenon. Can you make the statement that perhaps the right tool already exists? Yes of course, but so long as the testing methodology we have keeps on trying to do the wrong thing, what kind of result are you really getting?
3. Usable conclusions
-At this point, what can a DBT regarding cables do? What can you conclude after going through all this testing. Let us say that no one, not a one is able to distinguish between different cables. Do you then conclude that, wow the phenomenon does not exist. But wait a minute, did you not have to assume it existed to run the tests? Further more, don't we find ourselves with that issue that we are now once again trying to prove or disprove a person's experience using science? Here's the break down:
1. Either you are trying to prove or disprove a person's ability to hear differences between cables using NON-Science
or
2. In your attempt to test the phenomenon, you have use the wrong instrument, and inappropriate hypothesis?
At this point your conclusion is meaningless because it loses that quintissential nature that non-cable believers use to gain more credibility than the cable believers do -Science. Or you could also come to the conclusion that your scientific method, was faulty to begin with. So when you do DBT with regards to cable, ask yourself what are you really testing and are you testing something really scientific?
Now I know I've gotten criticisms from other members who are researchers and scientists, I ask you to evaluate what I have posted above carefully with regards to the scientific method or whatever method you use. And I ask you, is the current test for cables, a test for the existence of the phenomenon or a test of what the phenomenon is. And if it is a test for what the phenomenon is, then I ask is the current methodology acceptable?
Your dismissal of whatever goes on in this thread is acceptable, and if you no longer wish to reply, so be it. I cannot ask you to reply nor force you to do it. I can only flame you till you respond, but I won't flame.
============
In response to thepredator's comments:
Quote:
"Then I completely stand by more original statement that in such a hypothetical world where testing shows that people are able to discern the difference between cables, then science would of course show that there is a difference in cables and the entire burden of proof argument would be meaningless. It is a completely tautological statement because you are saying "if science shows x, then what would science show?"
The differentiation between a test of the phenomenon of hearing a cable and a test of physical differences between cables means little considering that nearly every single physical cable measurement is met with claims that the only way to test a cable is through experience (just look at any other thread and you will see posts along the lines of "you can't measure soundstage")." |
As mentioned earlier and even in this same post, I do not use science to test the existence of a phenomenon. And you are in fact making the crucial mistake I have illustrated above with regards to the psuedo-non-scientific DBT with regards to cables. So, I'm afraid your understanding of "if science shows x, then what would science show?" Is in fact a characterization of the problem, and is a misrepresentation of what I am arguing. If I were to summarize my claim it would be: "I demonstrate that I can perceive this, why is science telling me I cannot perceive it"
Your second paragraph also indicates this misuse or the improper use of science. Because in your statement, people are once again testing the existence of something rather than testing that something to determine its properties or whatever other conclusions you can come up with based on your hypothesis or initial assumptions. The tests people currently use are flawed, and that is what has led to these countless threads with regards to DBT of cables and other cable related issues.
