vmajor
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Posts
- 57
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Well no. Here is another quote that nicely summarises the FACT about hot water freezing faster: "While this phenomenon has been known for centuries, and was described by Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes [1-3], it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until 1969."
This phenomenon has indeed been observed, and tested, and not even that recently. Unlike the cable PSEUDO-science.
I say pseudoscience simply because it IS pseudoscience, not to insult anyone or incite a flame way - but feel free to flame and froth if you like. "A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method". "Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to rules of reasoning". None of the cable debates about perceived merits or sound advantages of exotic cables follow the scientific method.
Now that this is out of the way, due to the profound lack of any scientific data on merits of many of the numerous audiophile tweaks, the only conclusion that can still be salvaged using the scientific method is that it is all in your heads, thus psychological. If some of you struggle with the definition of psychological here it is: "Of, relating to, or arising from the mind or emotions"
The pseudoscientific method of validation is as follows:
1. Present scientifically sound arguments
2. Place them completely outside of the context where they were defined to exist and empirically observed
3. Include corroborating evidence from yet another context which is empirically unrelated to 1 and 2
4. Mention quantum effects/eddy currents/skin effect/reflections/make up your own, using the latest Start Trek scientific breakthrough
5. Apply the good old legal tool called "precedent" again either completely out of context or misrepresented (See the hot water freezing example above) to try to add credibility to the hitherto questionable supposition.
6. Froth a lot and take it personally if anyone dares question the merits of the gizmo
Lastly, it really does not matter if the science of any of the hifi tweaks add up so stop defending (attacking is fine
) the b****dy science of it or try forcing either side of the "I can hear it"/"No you cannot" coin to change their mind.
Music is about emotion. You are not listening to it to do an FFT spcetral analysis of the waveforms (at least not for fun), you listen to it because you want to enjoy the experience. I dare say that the way the system looks greatly affects the way the music feels...
Cheers,
V.
| Originally Posted by HumanMedia But then it has just been proved that hot water freezes faster than cold water despite being reported anecdotally for decades (hot water pipes freeze before cold water pipes) but poo-pooed by scientists as it was so illogical - and never tested properly. But this year it finally was tested and proved. If this head-in-the-sand attitude prevailed for so long on something so simple, what multitude of other phenomena have also been overlooked? (New Scientist June 2, 2006) |
Well no. Here is another quote that nicely summarises the FACT about hot water freezing faster: "While this phenomenon has been known for centuries, and was described by Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes [1-3], it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until 1969."
This phenomenon has indeed been observed, and tested, and not even that recently. Unlike the cable PSEUDO-science.
I say pseudoscience simply because it IS pseudoscience, not to insult anyone or incite a flame way - but feel free to flame and froth if you like. "A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method". "Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to rules of reasoning". None of the cable debates about perceived merits or sound advantages of exotic cables follow the scientific method.
Now that this is out of the way, due to the profound lack of any scientific data on merits of many of the numerous audiophile tweaks, the only conclusion that can still be salvaged using the scientific method is that it is all in your heads, thus psychological. If some of you struggle with the definition of psychological here it is: "Of, relating to, or arising from the mind or emotions"
The pseudoscientific method of validation is as follows:
1. Present scientifically sound arguments
2. Place them completely outside of the context where they were defined to exist and empirically observed
3. Include corroborating evidence from yet another context which is empirically unrelated to 1 and 2
4. Mention quantum effects/eddy currents/skin effect/reflections/make up your own, using the latest Start Trek scientific breakthrough
5. Apply the good old legal tool called "precedent" again either completely out of context or misrepresented (See the hot water freezing example above) to try to add credibility to the hitherto questionable supposition.
6. Froth a lot and take it personally if anyone dares question the merits of the gizmo
Lastly, it really does not matter if the science of any of the hifi tweaks add up so stop defending (attacking is fine
Music is about emotion. You are not listening to it to do an FFT spcetral analysis of the waveforms (at least not for fun), you listen to it because you want to enjoy the experience. I dare say that the way the system looks greatly affects the way the music feels...
Cheers,
V.
