[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. When you make an argument that something exists, on the basis of observational evidence, this is an empirical exercise. The relevance of science here is no less than that it disciplines the exercise in such a way as to generate proof of theses. By stating that you do not conform your proof methodology to scientific standards, you are simply informing the reader that what follows is not proof at all and cannot be taken seriously as a 'demonstration' of the existence of a particular phenomenon, as characterised by yourself. Yes, I understand that you are then trying to retreat to a characterisation of the phenomenon as something like the bare qualia associable with your experience. However, if you think that such an alternative characterisation is at all relevant, let alone dispositive of the issue at hand in a thread titled "the argument to end all cable wars", your conclusion defeats your own premise. 2. There is no trap to fall into. As noted above, yes, I get the distinction. My point is simply that such a distinction avails you of no protection against substantive criticisms of your proof methodology. In your dualist conception of subjective phenomenology, yes, I suppose science cannot in some limited sense conclusively "disprove" that you have the bare phenomenology that you have come to associate with cables. However, it can, as conclusively as really any other sort of empirical task, disprove your ascriptions of causality. Attempting to retreat to an argument over the bare existence of the attendant qualia, while perhaps rhetorically effective on the matter of whether science may conclusively 'disprove' all phenomenological elements you associate with the use of cables, is nonetheless completely and utterly self-effacing in a thread titled "the argument to end all cable wars." In other words, to say that the proper characterisation of the argument is that scientific arguments in cable arguments are no use, because the bare subjective phenomenology is not conclusively disproveable, is to do nothing more than tell the reader that you do not offer, and do not intend to offer, any particularly good reason to believe that cables themselves have a causal relationship with your experience. 3. This is just a rehash of the prior point. Yes, I get the distinction but as I noted the ultimate inferences are lethal to your overall project. 4. The test methodology you loosely described is designed to evaluate the causal relationship between the experience you claim to have and its purported cause. It is, in essence, an effort to isolate variables as to conclusively establish whether the cause is the cables themselves, but creating an experimental environment in which alternative theses fail to conform to the evidence. It is not is a test of whether you are lying or mistaken about your subjectivity. That is completely irrelevant to anyone who is concerned about whether cables have any impact on sound. The only thing that is relevant is whether there is a causal relationship, because the absence of proof of a causal relationship means that one may not reasonably expect cables to make any difference to the sound they experience. This is ultimately why insisting to me that this discussion is over the existence of 'the phenomenon', characterised as the bare qualia you have come to associate with cables, resolutely defeats your overall project. If this is all you wished to tell us about, then you've really not told us much of anything at all. It is simply uninteresting and irrelevant, to someone concerned about whether cables are causally inert vis-a-vis audible output, that you have some experience for which you cannot and will not conform your proof methodology to means adequate to prove causation.

The psuedo-scientific method used to demonstrate the existence of a perception is an exercise to demonstrate that I detect some sonic differences among the 6 cables. As I mentioned, science cannot prove that my experience exists, it is beyond the scope of science. My experience can be left as an experience and I can be called a crockpot or an idiot so long as I hold on to it -that is the reason why I perform those psuedo-scientific demonstrations. It is not to prove that the experience exists, but rather to get the community to understand that I in fact do experience something that allows me to differentiate between the 6 cables.

I am dealing with perceptions and I can't fathom how you could misconstrue anything I've written as dealing with theories of the mind. I do not retreat any of points brought up into problems or difficulties with theories of the mind, you're doing that for me. Your issue seems to be how I can state that science cannot disprove my experience. Science is limited to explaining and describing observed phenomena, it cannot prove or disprove what we experience. 99.999999999% of what we experience can be explained using science but do not mistake that as a proof for the existence of that experience. My perception of light and color can be described and explained by science, but science cannot prove that I can see light and color. Furthermore, I cannot prove that my experience exists as well (at least in the same sense that I can prove a particular theory or mathematical equation). I can merely state and demonstrate that I can see in color. Should I have the ability to demonstrate it, then science kicks in. The use of scientific based tests do not utilize science to prove that my experience exists -it simply demonstrates to a community that I can experience something that perhaps others do not, and now I look towards science to determine what it is.

Additionally, this isn't the tread to end all cable wars. Read the first couple of sentences in the first post. This is a working progress.


And if you're asking for what is important in all this its quite simple.
1. Science cannot prove/disprove my experience, it can only be used to demonstrate to a community that I am experiencing something through only changing cables in a system (do you really want to get into causality arguments here -because I am painstakingly taking the time to demonstrate that my other senses are numbed with the exception of my hearing and the only changes made are cables which result in some experience).

2. If 1 is true, then the current arguments against cables (eg dbt with cables, science says cables don't make a difference etc...) are meaningless

3. The non-cable party then has two choices
A. Admit that their arguments lack scientific basis
B. Admit that their scientific methodology are flawed (See previous posts)

If B, then their conclusions regarding dbt with cables provide us with nothing.

If A, then the pro-cable and the non-cable stand on equal footing, but more importantly it leads to the conclusion that non-cabler's need a new argument other than the previously used "science tells you that you can't hear this."
=====================

Ugly Joe, you're missing the point. the if then portion of all this leads to the conclusion that science cannot prove/disprove an experience. And if science cannot prove/disprove an experience then the current arguments stating that "science tells you that you cannot hear this" are nullified and the non-cablers must come up with new arguments against the pro-cabler.

 

[haloxt]

pdupiano, have you proven scientifically that you can hear differences in cables without being under the influence of placebo?

I haven't read much of this thread but I have read your first post where you say it is science's responsibility to find out why you hear a difference, but first we must be able to rule out the possibility of placebo and also the possibility that we're measuring the wrong things otherwise science is helpless to determine anything. Some dead guy once said you could measure technological progress by how much we discover about olfaction. I think you can measure the level of scientific method by how close or far people are to finding the answer to the cable question. On one hand there is the imponderable question of whether or not we are measuring the right things and giving the test subjects the proper testing environments, on the other hand there is the imponderable question of how much we know of placebo. Both sides will argue forever about their subjective experiences because science hasn't been able to say the last word, just like it hasn't been able to say the last word on most important topics.

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif pdupiano, have you proven scientifically that you can hear differences in cables without being under the influence of placebo? I haven't read much of this thread but I have read your first post where you say it is science's responsibility to find out why you hear a difference, but first we must be able to rule out the possibility of placebo and also the possibility that we're measuring the wrong things otherwise science is helpless to determine anything. Some dead guy once said you could measure technological progress by how much we discover about olfaction. I think you can measure the level of scientific method by how close or far people are to finding the answer to the cable question. On one hand there is the imponderable question of whether or not we are measuring the right things and giving the test subjects the proper testing environments, on the other hand there is the imponderable question of how much we know of placebo. Both sides will argue forever about their subjective experiences because science hasn't been able to say the last word, just like it hasn't been able to say the last word on most important topics.

I'm afraid i haven't begun testing people nor myself. And to be honest, that isn't really the point of all this. I will update my initial post because as others have criticized it, needs to be updated and changed. But for the most part here's the summary. When people do the tests that your are speaking of, they are in fact not taking part in a scientific process because what that are doing is proving the existence of an experience -a feat which science cannot do. Science cannot prove if I hear something just as science cannot prove that I can see differently from you. What people are in fact doing is using scientific process to try and demonstrate to the head-fi group and others that this person detects something about the different cables that allows him/her to differentiate between them. The issue then becomes, why do people keep invoking science as "proving" that people cannot hear something from different cables? So either the non-cablers admit that they are in fact not using science or they have misused science in all of these DBT tests, once again because you cannot prove/disprove the existence of an experience you can merely show that you are able to experience it through repeatable demonstration.

But yes I'm still at a university and may have some discretionary funds to try and find a person or two who can differentiate between cables, and if I find them, they'll be in the next NJ meet next year.

But remember that the value in all this is to show that the non-cabler's cannot use science to tell the pro-cabler that they cannot hear something in cables. And this is true without having to find someone who can in fact hear a difference. look at my second to last long post, that has the portion regarding the misuse of science/scientific method.

I will update this thread with a more, properly written statement later but since its the weekend maybe in a few days.

 

[haloxt]

I think both sides have been accusing each other of not using science properly since day 1.

 

[randomasdf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm afraid i haven't begun testing people nor myself. And to be honest, that isn't really the point of all this. I will update my initial post because as others have criticized it, needs to be updated and changed. But for the most part here's the summary. When people do the tests that your are speaking of, they are in fact not taking part in a scientific process because what that are doing is proving the existence of an experience -a feat which science cannot do. Science cannot prove if I hear something just as science cannot prove that I can see differently from you.

?????????????
Science can prove do a probable degree that you probably did experience something. Or, at least, sure as hell point in the direction that says "person A experience phenomenon B."

By implementing trials and a larger data set, you're introducing repeatability and if hypothetically they all tested positive, that would verify that your experience is in fact a true phenomenon based on the cables -- not just other factors such as psychological ones. I don't understand you. How can science not prove that an experience is real given enough information about the circumstances, unless you mean completely? In which case, I reply to you that it is impossible to prove or disprove anything completely -- and by stating that you are doing nothing more than illustrating your basic understanding of what the scientific method implies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif What people are in fact doing is using scientific process to try and demonstrate to the head-fi group and others that this person detects something about the different cables that allows him/her to differentiate between them.

I don't think anyone disagrees with your belief that you feel like you heard a difference. What we disagree with is your belief that the cable was the cause of the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif The issue then becomes, why do people keep invoking science as "proving" that people cannot hear something from different cables? So either the non-cablers admit that they are in fact not using science or they have misused science in all of these DBT tests, once again because you cannot prove/disprove the existence of an experience you can merely show that you are able to experience it through repeatable demonstration.

I don't follow your logic, at all.
People are invoking science because it is the only rational and logical approach available towards any subject -- cables are no exception. What people are arguing is whether the cause of the experience are cables, not whether or not you feel like you heard a difference. I am quite sure DBTs have been trying to demonstrate this by limiting the variables to only the cable type rather than allowing a number of factors to come into play. (How exactly do you misuse science? You can practice pseudoscience, but and distort the facts, but misusing science? Clarify that please.)


Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif But yes I'm still at a university and may have some discretionary funds to try and find a person or two who can differentiate between cables, and if I find them, they'll be in the next NJ meet next year.

Good luck with that, if you can demonstrate even in a small sample set that the phenomenon is real (this is not the experience, the phenomenon refers to cables causing an audible difference) granted with proper and controlled conditions I would be quite interested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif But remember that the value in all this is to show that the non-cabler's cannot use science to tell the pro-cabler that they cannot hear something in cables. And this is true without having to find someone who can in fact hear a difference. look at my second to last long post, that has the portion regarding the misuse of science/scientific method.

No, but we can tell the cablers that what they perceive as a difference is probably not caused by the cables. Cablers are assuming that the difference is caused by the cable itself and neglect to consider the role psychology may play.

 

[randomasdf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure I would accept Wikipedia as an authoritative source for anything* (also several parts of the article have circular reasoning), but if you read the entire article, the type of evidence we are talking about in these threads, which are first hand observations by people who can be examined about what they observed, do not, IMO, constitute the type of anecdotal evidence or hearsay evidence that the article is really talking about. A careful reading of many of the supporting statements and examples in the article seems to confirm this, IMO. Nevertheless, I understand better now why people might use the term "anecdotal evidence" in these discussions, although I still think it is somewhat disparaging, inaccurate, and circular, and quite clearly intended to be disparaging, as the first sentence of the article demonstrates. Note also that Wikipedia (assuming one accepts it for the sake of argument) distinguishes between "anecdotal evidence" and "anecdote." I believe my objection was to the latter, in terms of describing people's observations on this forum. I think the latter term is not realy appropriate, and I think the former is a little better (at least it uses the term "evidence"), but the meaning of the former term is pretty obscure given all the different things that are said in the article. In any event, and perhaps most important in all this, one can call them "observations," and it will not undermine any point that has been made or can be made in support of the objectivist position. * See, e.g., Court rules wikipedia not authoritative - The Inquirer

I find it interesting that you do not trust wikipedia but you're willing to trust anecdotal evidence. Wikipedia is one of the most strictly maintained communities. For common articles, like ones regarding anecdotal fallacies, it is going to be much harder for anyone to introduce false information. If you are truly concerned that someone is tampering with it, you can check the change history of the article.
Wikipedia:Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:

You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia… …you can only add to it. Wikipedia is a database with a memory designed to last as long as we can make it. An article you read today is just the current draft; every time it is changed, we keep both the new version and a copy of the old version. This allows us to compare different versions or restore older ones as needed. As a reader, you can even cite the specific copy of an article you are looking at. Just link to the article using the "Permanent link" at the bottom of the left menu, and your link will point to a page whose contents will never change. (However, if an article is deleted, your permanent link will no longer work unless you are an administrator.)

That said, there is a reason why science does not trust anecdotal evidence. Besides the fact that the speaker may often time distort facts and is highly unreliable, they usually do not provide enough information. What were the exact variables? What were the conditions of the experience, were they controlled? Etc, etc.

Referring to your example of eye witness testimony: forensics is hardly considered a science due to how much guess work is involved. Using eyewitnesses are often time very unreliable as they try to fill in the gaps in their experience and whether inadvertently or not, introduce false information. It has been well documented that false eyewitness trials has on quite a few occasions sent an innocent man to prison -- even death row! It was only with DNA evidence that they have been freed, if they are fortunate enough.

Also, regarding your example of the restaurant. Let's say your friend said the chicken was marvelous. Does he specify who the chef was that made the food? Does he specify what the exact ratio of ingredients were? Was the chicken frozen or fresh prior to being cooked? Etc etc. Of course, in everyday life we do not care and such other factors are rather negligible.

But right now if you're trying to definitively say that cables make a difference you have to approach it scientifically so that there is no doubt. The case for cables makes it even harder to consider such evidence as much DBTs strongly imply the root cause to be psychological in some nature rather than the cable itself. That would also mean you have to throw out evidence that was not taken under proper conditions, this case being anecdotal evidence.

It is not to say that we should ignore anecdotal evidence completely, for example if a large number of people report sicknesses after eating at a certain restaurant it would raise alarm and it would be safe to believe that the cause probably came from the food, someone being sick in the restaurant or something similar. However, we cannot use the anecdotal evidence to say that the problem came from the restaurant until you carryout a thorough investigation because what if a number of the people who had entered the restaurant was already sick but were sneezing? That would probably be contagious, and could be another cause.

Anecdotal evidence alone cannot be used as definitive evidence, what it does is suggest that there might be a phenomenon a more rigorous experiment should be implemented to study it.

 

[Filburt]

I have no idea where you got your notion of science from. Scientific methodology is simply disciplined empiricism. If you engage in an empirical endeavour, and fail to conform to scientific methodology, it simply means you've generated a dubious proof of concept and it is unreasonable to expect others to take the conclusion seriously.

I'll try to make this a bit clearer...

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is not to prove that the experience exists, but rather to get the community to understand that I in fact do experience something that allows me to differentiate between the 6 cables.

Let's break down this statement. It contains a few propositions.

a. You have some 'experience', which appears to essentially refer to some subjective phenomenon (e.g. 'it sounds different').

b. Particular 'experiences' are supervenient upon particular cables.

c. The combination of (a) and (b) means that you believe you can reliably differentiate between cables.

This means that you believe your experience, at least in some limited sense, tracks something phenomenologically distinct from your subjectivity. When you make such statements, you are entering the domain of that which may be empirically evaluated. Therefore, you invite criticism of your proof methodology if it fails to conform to acceptable standards (e.g. 'science') as failing to do so makes your conclusion unsound (e.g. that you can differentiate between cables).

Thus...

If what you mean to argue is that 'science' (a methodological concept; I have no idea why you use this word the way you do) cannot dispositively prove the absence of the subjective phenomenology to which you refer, then I suppose this is at least in a limited sense a largely uncontroversial statement. However, it is also a completely irrelevant proposition on the matter of whether cables impact sound.

Aside from this...

Claims that cables are causally relevant to audio involve two general propositions: (a) that subjective phenomenology is distinct and supervenient upon different cables, and (b) that there is a causal relationship between the two that cannot be explained by some intervening factor. This is necessarily the case, because people who advocate the belief that cables are causally relevant to sound are not arguing that cables, through some process of deception, 'placebo', or so forth are 'causing' people to hear differently. If this were the case, it would be rather strange to so self-consciously advocate a causal explanation that is premised upon some element of deception. Furthermore, it would be completely incongruent with the manner in which cables are marketed (they are marketed as though the cable, per physical characteristics, is causally relevant on the basis of a physical process).

Thus, the character of the 'debate' over cables is one of characterising causation, and the methodology used is intrinsically empirical. To say that 'science' cannot disprove your subjective experience is to say, in essence, nothing at all. It is a patently irrelevant point to make, because someone interested in whether cables make a difference is not wondering if you are experiencing something; they are wondering if what you experience is caused by cables. Therefore, there is no 'equal footing' to someone who fails or refuses to employ adequate proof methodology on what is, fundamentally, an empirical matter.

 

[haloxt]

Filburt, if I understand him correctly, I think he isn't saying science can't disprove subjective experience, but that science should keep on trying to figure out something IF IT IS THE CASE that objective explanations are not fully satisfactory. For example the vast majority of pro-cablers think placebo is not an acceptable answer (on the other hand there is a very small exception: those pro-cablers who accept placebo like an optometrist with perfect eyesight who wears plane glass glasses to ameliorate headaches). So he's just trying to tell anti-cablers that they should keep searching rather than accept the typical explanation of "no measurable differences" and "failed DBT tests". But I personally don't think anyone is responsible to practice any degree of scientific integrity or inquiry, you should be allowed to think what you want, just leave people alone when they want to be left alone to their own opinions.

 

[mideel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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?

Ok pdupiano I'm going to be blunt with you. Here is a quick summary of your argument:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

The only way to describe a phenomenon is by looking at the way it manifests. This is what we call an observation. In your case you have made the observation that cables cause audible differences even when the differences objectively measure bellow the absolute threshold of hearing. (The threshold of hearing is generally reported as the RMS sound pressure of 20 µPa). And not only that, you are claiming to actually hear a difference of 0.001dB (a reasonable difference between cables) when music (or a test signal) is playing and remember this difference well enough to differentiate between another cable. That is an extraordinary claim that requires other kinds of justifications than just anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano As I mentioned, science cannot prove that my experience exists,

Actually science has many things to say on peoples experiences and can measure an experience and quantify it to some degree (MRI). Science can't be used to disprove your experiences (that has been made very clear by this point in this thread), but maybe you just miss typed here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano 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.

What else could be used? Since the actual measurements are saying that you should not be able tell the difference between cables, yet the cable believers claim to be able to HEAR a difference, and not only hear it but claim it's objectively there and that science just hasn't found the "missing link".

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano 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.

There are instruments for the purpose of determining what the phenomenon is, an oscilloscope would be one of those instruments, but since all these instruments fail to tell a quantifiably significant difference between cables the conclusion has to be drawn (especially with the information gathered from all the previous DBTs with cables) that the difference is not actually caused by the equipment being tested, but is caused by the person being tested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano 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?

Firstly the testing methodology is not trying to do the wrong thing, its doing the ONLY thing possible to test the claims of the cable believers. Its just that most of the cable believers are never going to concede or even conceder the conclusion that all this testing is pointing to. The conclusion being that the differences are a placebo and thus only in your own mind and here is were the controversy stems from. The objectivist is quite bluntly saying (no matter how nicely you phrase it or sugar coat it): "The differences you hear are not objectively there, but are caused by a placebo" and this can easily turn in to the same thing as saying: "We have a name for people who hear things that aren't really there, its called crazy! Perhaps you should go check yourself in at the nearest mental institution." (or something similar). In most cases its interpreted as something that's insulting to the cable believers intellect, when in fact its just used to point out that hearing things that aren't real, seeing things that aren't real and believing in things that aren't real are inescapably just part of the human condition (dreaming, Santa Claus, hallucinations, optical illusions, mediums, UFO's etc. just to name a few). Making claims that a $1000 piece of copper is much better than a $10 piece of copper even when they objectively measure the same is deceptive and misleading when there are other explanations available as to why a $1000 cable sounds different from a $10 one, but as always cable believers are not prepared to give these kinds of things any consideration because they know they are right and are immune to the human condition.
And just to introduce some data to the table: a study shows that $90 wine tastes better than the same wine at $10 a correlation between spending and enjoyment.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomasdf /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find it interesting that you do not trust wikipedia but you're willing to trust anecdotal evidence.

I don't think it's accurate to say I "trust" anecdotal evidence. I merely consider it, in conjunction with other evidence, and try to make a judgment based on all of the evidence that is available to me. Others, however, have asserted that anecdotal evidence means "nothing." This is what the essence of the disagreement is.

I also believe that claiming that listener's observations are "mere anecdotes" or "anecdotal evidence" is often an attempt to disparage the claims of subjectivists. They terms that tend to be used by the most hard core objectivists. And, frankly, I don't think it advances the discussion to label something as "anecdotal evidence" or a "mere anecdote." We all know what the evidence is. The issue is whether it is probative, to what extent is it probative, whether the evidence on the other side refutes it, etc.

Anyway, that's my opinion of the matter, and I'm sticking to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomasdf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anecdotal evidence alone cannot be used as definitive evidence, what it does is suggest that there might be a phenomenon a more rigorous experiment should be implemented to study it.

I think I am in general agreement with you. But here's my take on the issue. If I had never listened to DAC A and DAC B, and some folks on this forum said DAC A sounded better, but there was a blind test which failed to reveal a difference between those two DAC's, I would have to seriously question the reported observations of the listeners.

OTOH, if some folks said DAC A sounded better, and some other folks said that no blind test had ever revealed an audible difference between DAC's (but there was no specific test involving DAC A and DAC B) and I listed to DAC A an found that it sounded different and better, then I would tend to believe what I hear. And based on what I heard, and what others reported, I would have some serious questions about whether the binds tests that had been reported regarding other DAC's were definitive, or helpful.

Does that make sense?

 

[IPodPJ]

This is a response to the original poster and first post:

Very well written. Perhaps it's something like the Asparagus/Smelly Urine phenomenon.

Science has observed that asparagus makes your urine smell. I can smell it. It smells horrible, therefore I try not to eat asparagus.

But the interesting thing is this: not everyone can detect the scent in urine. It has been discovered that about 50% of people have the gene which allows them to smell this. Scientists aren't sure if the gene is actually responsible for breaking down the asparagus into a horrible smell and only those 50% can smell it, or that everyone who eats asparagus creates this horrible smelling urine and only 50% of people can smell it. But either way, at this time we know that a gene is responsible for it and only half the people can detect it.

Could it be possible (of course it could and you'd be foolish to say otherwise, but the likelihood is very improbable) that certain people have a gene that allow them to hear certain things that others cannot?

Think on this.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is blatantly making a categorical claim (any argument that they sound the same is silly).

Yes, I suppose it is. But at least it is specific (it relates to two specific pieces of equipment) and it is clearly labeled as an "opinion," and, in addition, it is one based on my personal experience.

That's a little bit different than saying as a matter of absolute fact that there is no possibility that cables (or whatever) sound audibly different because one has read some studies by some other people that seem to show that.

 

[PhilS]

mideel, to the extent you're making a polk at religion, I would note that religious discussions are prohibited on this forum. And the above may be found offensive by some. Perhaps you would edit it.

 

[haloxt]

Lol did you draw that yourself?

But f you want to explain all cable differences as placebo I want an educated explanation of the psychology behind it. It isn't satisfactory to me that you say because "there is no measurable differences" that "it must all be due to placebo". Because 1. maybe you aren't measuring the right things and 2. I doubt you understand enough about placebo to say with absolute certainty that it is the only answer.

That link you gave is a good example of how people today are more interested in disconnected trivia than real knowledge. The conclusion that that link points to is one which has been known forever, which is that people's moods are influenced by thought. They make it out to be some great new revolutionary scientific discovery for a trivia-addicted general population to consume and parrot to each other but it's just another rehash of decades/century old discoveries. The fact that such pop-science exists should tell you the real appetite people have for actual scientific inquiry.

But I think one of the obstacles to dbt's is that people are deprived of something to focus on visually. Maybe playing video games is a good way to conduct cable tests?

 

[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have no idea where you got your notion of science from. Scientific methodology is simply disciplined empiricism. If you engage in an empirical endeavour, and fail to conform to scientific methodology, it simply means you've generated a dubious proof of concept and it is unreasonable to expect others to take the conclusion seriously. I'll try to make this a bit clearer... Let's break down this statement. It contains a few propositions. a. You have some 'experience', which appears to essentially refer to some subjective phenomenon (e.g. 'it sounds different'). b. Particular 'experiences' are supervenient upon particular cables. c. The combination of (a) and (b) means that you believe you can reliably differentiate between cables. This means that you believe your experience, at least in some limited sense, tracks something phenomenologically distinct from your subjectivity. When you make such statements, you are entering the domain of that which may be empirically evaluated. Therefore, you invite criticism of your proof methodology if it fails to conform to acceptable standards (e.g. 'science') as failing to do so makes your conclusion unsound (e.g. that you can differentiate between cables). Thus... If what you mean to argue is that 'science' (a methodological concept; I have no idea why you use this word the way you do) cannot dispositively prove the absence of the subjective phenomenology to which you refer, then I suppose this is at least in a limited sense a largely uncontroversial statement. However, it is also a completely irrelevant proposition on the matter of whether cables impact sound. Aside from this... Claims that cables are causally relevant to audio involve two general propositions: (a) that subjective phenomenology is distinct and supervenient upon different cables, and (b) that there is a causal relationship between the two that cannot be explained by some intervening factor. This is necessarily the case, because people who advocate the belief that cables are causally relevant to sound are not arguing that cables, through some process of deception, 'placebo', or so forth are 'causing' people to hear differently. If this were the case, it would be rather strange to so self-consciously advocate a causal explanation that is premised upon some element of deception. Furthermore, it would be completely incongruent with the manner in which cables are marketed (they are marketed as though the cable, per physical characteristics, is causally relevant on the basis of a physical process). Thus, the character of the 'debate' over cables is one of characterising causation, and the methodology used is intrinsically empirical. To say that 'science' cannot disprove your subjective experience is to say, in essence, nothing at all. It is a patently irrelevant point to make, because someone interested in whether cables make a difference is not wondering if you are experiencing something; they are wondering if what you experience is caused by cables. Therefore, there is no 'equal footing' to someone who fails or refuses to employ adequate proof methodology on what is, fundamentally, an empirical matter.

I get my notion of science through theory and practice (I have and currently am studying 2 fields of engineering, physics, mathematics, and philosophy -and yes I am not going to graduate in 4 years, quite possibly hoping to graduate in 7).

But I think here is where we deviate:
"This means that you believe your experience, at least in some limited sense, tracks something phenomenologically distinct from your subjectivity. When you make such statements, you are entering the domain of that which may be empirically evaluated. Therefore, you invite criticism of your proof methodology if it fails to conform to acceptable standards (e.g. 'science') as failing to do so makes your conclusion unsound (e.g. that you can differentiate between cables)."

Actually I admit completely that what it is that I experience is subjective - "I experience it." The empirical evaluation of the phenomenon, only occurs after accepting that it exists. And the criticisms people have for my demonstration (and I do use demonstration, not as a lower form of proof, but in fact demonstration, for I cannot prove using whatever means that the phenomenon I experience is real, or at least I cannot do so in an objective way; I am very limited to, simply showing/demonstrating that I in fact do perceive such a phenomenon and that this phenomenon is physically manifested in my ability to differentiate between cables) is limited to the demonstrable test. And I offer the hypothetical test that I have placed in the past. But here is the point, I do not use science. And I think that is were we differentiate between the two.

From my conceptions of science (if I am wrong then point it out), science works upon observations -Physical/non physical phenomenon (eg the mind or what we cannot perceive such as neutrinos and electrons). Science then studies, and through a series of examinations/testing procedures and through other reductive means, attempts to obtain more information with regards to the observed phenomenon. In all this, science does not question the existence of the phenomenon, it can't. The reason that it cannot question the phenomenon is because to run tests and hypotheses, all hypotheses and tests would begin with "If phenomenon A existed then...." and presumably you would run a series of tests etc...

But there are problems to this. When you devise a test or new equipment based on a phenomenon, you devise the tests based on the properties of this phenomenon. Unfortunately, we no know nothing of this phenomenon other than with this phenomenon, a person is able to differentiate between 6 cables. We know nothing about how it works, or what it interacts with in our ears that brings about this perception.

So now looking at the current cable test that people use (DBT), we see that people have the hypothesis
"If this phenomenon/perception exists, then they should be able to differentiate between the set of cables available"

While that may look like a superficially acceptable hypothesis, it has a few other problems. First, look at the possible conclusions that you can arrive to.
Case 1: The person is able to differentiate between the cables. Based on your assumption and your "test" what have you learned? Nothing, because you had to assume that the phenomenon existed and that they would be able to differentiate between the cables. Now this would be the tautology or tautological statement that thepredator brought up in earlier posts.

Case 2: The person is unable to differentiate between the cables (to make matters simple, lets lump together someone who is completely wrong, partially wrong etcc, thus requiring case 1 to be the case wherein the subject was able to clearly pick out all 6 cables). You come to the conclusion that either
1. The test is faulty
2. The phenomenon does not exist

Most people conclude that the phenomenon does not exist, but the issue here is that in running these tests you assumed that the phenomenon existed, and based on that assumption, you design your tests and your equipment to do what?

Now honestly ask yourself, what does this test really test? Does it test the properties of the phenomenon? Does it examine and go beyond what we have already assumed or what we know? Unfortunately it does not. The test of using a stereo system and only changing the cables (dbt or otherwise) is actually a "test" for the existence of the phenomenon. You are in effect testing the existence of the observation. And this is why I state that science cannot test an observation because it leads to this odd cyclic series of tests and a somewhat rather tautological sequence of thought.

You come to the following statements:
If phenomenon A exists, then phenomenon A exists
or
If phenomenon A exists, then phenomenon A does not exist

Ultimately meaningless.

BTW nice cartoon Mideel, but understand that what you are pointing out as a problem is what I just describe above, I Figure it might be easier to just address it here than having to rehash it in another post. But if anything, that cartoon is actually more akin to "I has a cable that makes my system sound different" and well... I think we all know where that leads to. That's not my logic, that is I'm afraid the non-cabler's logic. Well not really but just saying. The real issue with that cartoon is that I say you cannot prove the existence of this perception -if I am wrong based on what I posted above, then you are more than welcome to make future cartoons, so long as you get what I am stating correctly -your previous one obvious shows that you do not. But then again perhaps that a problem I created if you only read the first post (as I updated the first post was faulty).

So before I go on, or even expand on this further, do you understand the point that I am making with regards to the demonstration of the phenomenon versus the proof of its existence, and how science cannot prove/disprove of its existence?

And if it's not clear, I'd like to know if I missed anything or if there is a jump in my logic somewhere.

Remember that the goal here is to demonstrate that the current DBT on cables, is
1. Faulty, and problematic
2. Thus not an acceptable scientific proof against the cable believer's claim.