The Monkey
Monkey See, Monkey DAC
A really sick dud
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Posts
- 8,012
- Likes
- 142
Quote:
Experience and authority does not prevent from believing all sorts of BS.
Of course.
Experience and authority does not prevent from believing all sorts of BS.
This thread is becoming an example of why DBT was “banished” to the Science forum. Actually, it hasn’t been all that bad, but still there’s been a few rants and unproductive insults towards fellow head-fiers – goodness, we’re meant to be on the same side. I can’t think of any other hobby which invokes such antagonism.
The correct answer to the original question was given by Roger Strummer in the 2nd post. Yet some people just can’t accept the simple and obvious. They just can’t let go and so inevitably the downward spiral starts with the same boring fights and put downs.
The sticky in the old format site stated it very clearly. I thought it was carefully written to say that it’s not about who is right or wrong. There’s no conspiracy or victimisation – it’s just a pragmatic way of preventing endless arguments that NEVER come to a helpful conclusion.
With the new format site, that sticky seems to have gone, but dexter3d, you’ve been a member since 2008, so surely you must have come across it?
Originally Posted by TheAttorney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There’s no conspiracy or victimisation – it’s just a pragmatic way of preventing endless arguments that NEVER come to a helpful conclusion.
I think it's cool enough that anecdotal evidence is allowed. The Forum is better off being like a load of mates down the pub talking bollocks than a court of law. So long as you exercise a bit of common sense. Fortunately delusionist Night and Dayers tend no to be very rigourous by definition so at least they rarely fabricate evidence.
Anyway there is no ban on asking people how they reached a certain conclusion or what steps they took to eliminate human error.
People talk crap all the time about practically everything. I mean you don't get in a tedious handbags fight if someone tells you that Tottenham Hotspur are the best football team in the world do you? Any even remotely scientific analysis proves you are right but it's more fun laughing at them.
There are SCIENTISTS (people with nature science PhDs doing research work), who believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Experience and authority does not prevent from believing all sorts of BS.
Yes, but very few of those scientists are geologists. Being an expert in your field doesn't make you an expert in *every* field. You wouldn't ask a physicist a question about neurology, and you'd probably want to avoid talking to an engineer entirely (I kid, really). But in this case, we're talking about people who are respected for their experience with headphones and their opinion on headphones.
And of course just because someone is knowledgeable on a subject doesn't mean that they're infallible, but it does mean that they have more knowledge to make an educated guess on and that perhaps their opinion should lend a bit more weight. After all, if we're to continue with the "professional" comparison, you'd be better off consulting a cardiologist when you have heart problems than a guy who has done some light reading on the subject.
In the US, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus is where a lot of the false advertising disputes play out. (Many other countries have similar tribunals.) I've always been interested in how NAD would handle a consumer complaint about cable advertising.
Originally Posted by Ronald Dumsfield
I think it's cool enough that anecdotal evidence is allowed. The Forum is better off being like a load of mates down the pub talking bollocks than a court of law. So long as you exercise a bit of common sense. Fortunately delusionist Night and Dayers tend no to be very rigourous by definition so at least they rarely fabricate evidence.
Anyway there is no ban on asking people how they reached a certain conclusion or what steps they took to eliminate human error.
Also, I'd be careful about using the word 'fraud' - by definition, it's an intentional act. Plenty of cable makers believe in the claims they make, as wrong as they probably are. Misleading or false would be a much more accurcate term.