[castleofargh]

This (bringing data) is often seen as being "scientific" because that is what scientists do, right? Produce data. But that is not really it and that is why I used the term 'cargo cult science' earlier on. People who get stuck on "bringing data" have something that has a superficial resemblance to science, but it is not science. Data is a fraction of what it takes to do science. There is a huge amount of work that precedes it and there is a huge amount of work that follows it.

I will try to explain within the context of a (hypothetical) discussion here in the forum. I come in here and I make a statement along the lines of "X works in such-and-such a way", but it is something you have read about and you are immediately sceptical about it. So what do you do? You go online to search for credible scientific research that proves the opposite. Right? You come back and you present that to me in the form of a number of papers that you neatly connect to make a convincing and consistent argument to the contrary. Still right?

However, that is not how science works and it is incredibly difficult to explain this because I know how, to you, that is how science looks to be working. In science every aspect has a different level to it that is intuitive to the scientist, but is something you only learn by doing it. It is what I refer to here:

I'm not stuck on data because I think it solves everything, or exhaustively defines what science is. I'm stuck on data because on most topics, a person will come with a belief, probably expressed as a conclusion or a fact, but will be empty handed when it comes to the data that is supposed to have led him to that conclusion or the knowledge that it is indeed a fact. asking for data in any shape or form is a fast filter to separate empty claims from legit stuff. if I take your example and you make the statement "X works in such-and-such a way", I assume that you have evidence to support that statement. otherwise why did you even make it? so if I have a problem with that statement for more or less valid reasons, or simply if I'm curious about it, I will ask for the evidence you have so that it can hopefully demonstrate to me the fact that X works in such and such way.
I'm confused by your post, producing data, gathering data, interpreting data, sharing data, yes I believe that's an essential part of getting to know anything. what's wrong with data?

beyond that, we're not scientists, we do very little research ourselves(in part because the equipment costs so much ), and most of all, we deal with your everyday audiophile and are it ourselves. you're asking for standards that have no place and simply no way to be implemented here.
our highest standards that a majority of posters still can't reach in this section, are to try and limit the number of empty claims(because nothing good ever comes out of those), to try and define objective stuff objectively and sound impressions with listening tests where sound is tested, not sound plus vision plus preconceptions plus... if we could get that more consistently in topics, I'd be super happy already.

To give a practical example. You read scientific literature, right? Do you know how to search for it? That is a genuine and sincere question, not some attempt to take a swipe at anyone. Searching scientific literature is a skill that takes time to learn and it is science 101. Same thing for reading it, only that takes longer to learn. Those are the first courses we give science students because it is a basic skill that, without the experience, they're going to fluff. This is the process that I am referring to above and what leads to people learn how to bend over backwards to interrogate their own opinion and (most importantly) understand why that is such a vital part of being a scientist. Maybe a few people here have some form of training in science, but I don't see that kind of integrity here and a statement like "audio cables do not make a difference" is symptomatic of that.

I can't identify with the cable example as I've been disagreeing with posting exactly that on another topic those last 2 days. ^_^

 

[chaos215bar2]

In the spirit of this discussion, it would be interesting to see examples of exactly what you're referring to.

I'm certainly guilty of making such sweeping, generalized statements on occasion, but that doesn't mean I don't know such a statement is inaccurate. I do this precisely because, in the wrong context, my normal, pedantic attention to accuracy is just going to distract from the point being made.

As I indicate above, it is difficult for me to gauge the level of the various people here so I can adjust to it. The black swan is actually a famous example used in philosophy of science for illustrating a number of different things because it is a simple and clear example. But I get a sense that I can't use it here in the way that I am used to.

Getting back to @Wyville's example, this is why context matters. If this sub-forum were strictly limited to rigorous scientific discussion and moderated as such, I agree, a statement like "Audio cables do not make a difference." is obviously nonsense and would have no place in this sub-forum. But, this sub-forum is open to anyone and moderated with a fairly light touch, so when someone comes along who rejects the very concept of an objective performance metric and has a nasty habit of twisting and misrepresenting any nuanced statement to suite their needs, sometimes the only constructive response is the one that, while only mostly accurate, doesn't leave room for interpretation, "Audio cables do not make a difference.".

What I am aiming at with quoting such a statement has nothing to do with cables, but with how the statement is formulated and how people get to the point that they make such statements. I have no problem with a person stating that "audio cables do not make a difference" as such, it is simply a statement of opinion and people are free to believe what they believe. However, if that person claims in the same breath that they are being scientific (as they do here), then they are contradicting themselves because it is clearly not a conclusion reached in a scientific way.

Hopefully it was clear that I agree the statement "Audio cables do not make a difference." is not strictly correct. But that's not what my post was about; I was trying to explain why a statement like that might come up in a thread, and why it might even be reasonable in the context of the thread. That's why I was asking for examples.

That said, I don't think "Audio cables do not make a difference." is necessarily the best example, since I think most people understand that audio cables do obviously make a difference, to a point, after which any further improvements are either nonexistent (in the case of digital signals (yes, I know that's a slight oversimplification)) or quickly reach the point of diminishing returns. (Where everyone defines this point, obviously, is going to be very subjective.) Generally speaking, I'd expect a thread containing this precise statement to have gone pretty far off the rails by the time said statement was made.

I will mention that this is an interesting example considering the review @Steve999 linked above, which you appear to have written: https://twister6.com/2019/02/10/dita-audio-truth-cables/. I know it's not in the Sound Science section here, but you might want to comment on that given the context.

The comment was part of the entire post I made and the "you" refers to the Sound Science forum in general. I know you (as an individual) are very knowledgeable and if you have a background in science then you will understand what I am trying to point out here, and you will understand how discussions here in the Sound Science forums never achieve the level of scientific rigor that people profess to have.

FWIW, I absolutely read the line you're referring to as a shot at @bigshot. When quoting a message, if you're not directing your comment directly at its author, I would recommend using a pronoun other than "you". I'd also contend that referring to the entirety of the community posting in the Sound Science forum as "you" is likely to detract from whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[Steve999]

Well, the post below yours is a perfect example. The reigning dogma here is that cables do not make a difference and anyone who disagrees is considered the root of all evil. It is this sort of thing that is deeply anti-intellectual and it creates a very toxic atmosphere. It is because people believe in an absolute truth, in proof positive of an inductive argument (which is not possible). This leads them to look for ulterior motives, arbitrarily invoke terms such as "placebo", etc.. This sort of thing has nothing to do with science. It is just people arguing opinion in a militant fashion while arbitrarily laying claim to the term "science" because it gives them an excuse to argue from authority and shut down any criticism.

You show zero scientific rigor. To extend @castleofargh ’s analogy: You’re not a chess master, you have no chess board, you don’t know how the pieces move, and you knocked all of the pieces off the board after you lost in three moves.

https://twister6.com/author/wyville/

— Written by @Wyville

Checkmate.

 

[Wyville]

I'm not stuck on data because I think it solves everything, or exhaustively defines what science is. I'm stuck on data because on most topics, a person will come with a belief, probably expressed as a conclusion or a fact, but will be empty handed when it comes to the data that is supposed to have led him to that conclusion or the knowledge that it is indeed a fact. asking for data in any shape or form is a fast filter to separate empty claims from legit stuff.

Data is absolutely essential in science, there is no getting around that, but what I was trying to clarify is that data can easily be misunderstood, misrepresented and even abused if the person considering the data does not understand it fully. You see that with people here when it comes to cables (just see the mess that this thread has turned into). They read something that confirms their opinion and the treat it as gospel because it is "science" even though the data they are using has lost its context, is out of date or is simply misrepresented. That is really easy to do and it is something that you learn during your science education and as you move from one degree to the other. The more scientific things get, the more challenging this aspect becomes.

ps. For the others who are now throwing a fit... I do find it really funny to read that people think I was putting on a persona or something like that because they can't imagine that a scientist will do things simply for fun. I enjoy describing the entirely subjective experience of listening to music in a colourful way and do so in part for medical reasons. It's never been a secret, as all my reviews are linked in my signature and I even stated very clearly ages ago in this forum that I review cables (was called the root of all evil back then as well).

pps. Not all reviews linked to are mine.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Data is absolutely essential in science, there is no getting around that, but what I was trying to clarify is that data can easily be misunderstood, misrepresented and even abused if the person considering the data does not understand it fully. You see that with people here when it comes to cables (just see the mess that this thread has turned into). They read something that confirms their opinion and the treat it as gospel because it is "science" even though the data they are using has lost its context, is out of date or is simply misrepresented.

Got a specific example for us?

 

[Steve999]

pps. Not all reviews linked to are mine.

https://twister6.com/author/wyville/

Now they are. Happy reading everyone.

 

[gregorio]

[1] So you have taught science and yet you have no problem with talking in absolutes and making dogmatic statements?
[1a] I'm sorry, but I find that very odd.
[2] Surely, as a man of science, you understand the problem of induction and that we can never prove positive an inductive statement? [2a] That science is never settled because it is inherent to its nature?
[3] And that historical research has limited uses in today's science?
[4] Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

1. I have stated that I've taught sound and music technology/engineering, which of course requires a considerable amount of science. And no, I have no problem whatsoever talking in absolutes and making dogmatic statements, in fact I would incompetent if I didn't! Digital audio and in fact all digital technology is entirely based on either a zero or a one, it just doesn't get any more absolute than that! Now if I were teaching cutting edge particle physics, then that's an entirely different kettle of fish where pretty much nothing is either absolute or "settled" and the same is true when I'm teaching the art/aesthetics of recording/mixing/producing sound or music. On the technological side of recording and reproduction though we're not dealing with cutting edge theoretical science we're dealing with the application of arguably the most well researched and established science that exists, the vast majority of which was done and dusted many decades or even centuries ago, even to the point that no one even bothers researching it any more. For example, there was massive research of cables done in the 1850's - 1930's because there was literally trillions of dollars at stake worldwide from introducing electrical power distribution and various forms of telecommunication systems. We're dealing with science that is not only "settled" beyond any reasonable doubt but has been successfully demonstrated and implemented in literally billions of devices for numerous decades, there is nothing more "settled" than that! You've been told all this, there's ample literature that provides all these facts and history, yet you just keep on with the nonsense regardless! And again, this behaviour is the antithesis of science!!
1a. Again, what you're actually demonstrating is your own ignorance. You don't get to dictate what is and isn't science on the basis of what you (incorrectly) find "very odd". This is the sound science forum, not the "what wyville finds very odd" forum!

2. Yes, I do understand that problem. The difference between us is that I am also able to understand when it is NOT applicable!
2a. And again, within the specified tolerances of the technology, virtually all the science is "settled" and has been for a long time!!

3. You're joking, surely? No one is talking about today's science, we're talking about today's (recording/reproduction) technology which implements yesterday's science. And, even the case of cutting edge applications of digital audio, much/most of it is still very heavily reliant on historical research carried out and settled many decades/centuries ago! For example, the research of Joseph Fourier nearly two centuries ago.

4. I'm coming from the "settled" science upon which all recording/reproduction technology is based! I think it's quite clear where you are coming from!

G

 

[bfreedma]

He is not what he says he is. His credibility is zero. Here is one of many of his snake oil reviews,

https://twister6.com/2019/02/10/dita-audio-truth-cables/

Written by @Wyville

Well that puts the discussion in perspective...

Well, the post below yours is a perfect example. The reigning dogma here is that cables do not make a difference and anyone who disagrees is considered the root of all evil. It is this sort of thing that is deeply anti-intellectual and it creates a very toxic atmosphere. It is because people believe in an absolute truth, in proof positive of an inductive argument (which is not possible). This leads them to look for ulterior motives, arbitrarily invoke terms such as "placebo", etc.. This sort of thing has nothing to do with science. It is just people arguing opinion in a militant fashion while arbitrarily laying claim to the term "science" because it gives them an excuse to argue from authority and shut down any criticism.

So no specific examples from you highlighting where you believe other factors exist and should be included. I would have thought that for all of the criticism of of the members and their posts you've made, you would have at least one specific scenario you could bring to the table to help everyone understand your stance.

Complaining about a subsequent email rather than addressing the question seems to indicate the position we see fairly often in this sub form - "Science doesn't know everything, so science knows nothing". That's not to say that there may not be discoveries in the future that perhaps change what we consider validated today, but using that as a blunt object to deny well vetted audio science is, IMO, the opposite of the scientific approach you state that you prefer to follow.

 

[bigshot]

It’s obvious. Hang it up, pal. This isn’t going to end good if you keep up the act. Just a bit of friendly advice. We aren’t mad at you. We’ve just seen this same routine before many times. It may be new to you, but we know where this line of unreasoning ends up.

 

[gregorio]

Well that puts the discussion in perspective...

Indeed it does. I can say with ABSOLUTE certainty, that if @Wyville jumps off the empire state building (without a parachute or other aid), the very last thing he'll experience is not some uncertain, unsettled quantum physics effect but Newton's 350 year old research on motion and gravity!

It's typical, in a desperate attempt to gain some factual/scientific credence, they turn to cutting edge theoretical science but completely ignore/contradict what should be the most blatantly obvious science/facts that even a child should know, let alone a university science student or an actual research scientist! And then they call us unscientific, it's so absurd it's laughable!

G

 

[Wyville]

It’s obvious. Hang it up, pal. This isn’t going to end good if you keep up the act. Just a bit of friendly advice. We aren’t mad at you. We’ve just seen this same routine before many times. It may be new to you, but we know where this line of unreasoning ends up.

Thank you for making my point about the atmosphere here being toxic so abundantly clear. For what it's worth, I don't approach this hobby with any technological scientific intent because my interest is in the psychological experience/physiological response as part of music therapy. My own views have not been my motivation for coming here, but a genuine and sincere attempt to share some insights into basic (fundamental) science for those who profess to be interested in science. Seriously, this is how you chase away people with genuine expertise who could make a value contribution. But I will take your advice and leave you guys be.

 

[bfreedma]

Thank you for making my point about the atmosphere here being toxic so abundantly clear. For what it's worth, I don't approach this hobby with any technological scientific intent because my interest is in the psychological experience/physiological response as part of music therapy. My own views have not been my motivation for coming here, but a genuine and sincere attempt to share some insights into basic (fundamental) science for those who profess to be interested in science. Seriously, this is how you chase away people with genuine expertise who could make a value contribution. But I will take your advice and leave you guys be.

I don't say this as an attack but as a statement of fact based on your posts - you seem to complain about everyone else's "insight into fundamental science", yet you offer no defined alternative views or even a single explicit point where you take issue with what's been posted.

General whinging about "proper science" and "toxic atmosphere" is starting to sound like a cover for not actually having anything specific or constructive to offer.

 

[Wyville]

I don't say this as an attack but as a statement of fact based on your posts - you seem to complain about everyone else's "insight into fundamental science", yet you offer no defined alternative views or even a single explicit point where you take issue with what's been posted.

General whinging about "proper science" and "toxic atmosphere" is starting to sound like a cover for not actually having anything specific or constructive to offer.

Sure, I could have probably done a better job at it. But at the end of the day we are all human. You never get anywhere if you are scared of making mistakes.

 

[chaos215bar2]

[1] Even the most well established theory is subject to reevaluation should evidence contradict its claims,
[1a] because we cannot observe the axiomatic laws on which the universe operates. We can only observe, theorize, test, and come up with our best approximation. The mistake comes in assuming that science's best, rigorously studied approximation of reality is on par with one's own (warning; the linked page is complete nonsense).
[2] But, science has to admit the possibility that the evidence is incomplete or flawed; the possibility that there is an audible difference between 16-bit and 24-bit audio (properly mastered), or between 48 kHz and 96 kHz.
[2a] The problem is, that's a discussion that requires a lot of nuance and the ability to view such a statement with perspective, understanding that while it could be true, it's also incredibly unlikely given current evidence and has been discussed ad nauseam to the point that it's not worth even bringing up unless you're bringing a truly new perspective to the table.

[Very detailed response.]

@gregorio, I'd really like to respond to your post (particularly the questions you posed), but the way you clipped a few segments from multiple posts out of context and responded to what was a fairly high level, philosophical argument with an extreme level of technical detail makes that rather difficult. I'll just leave it at this: I think if you read my posts carefully, you'll find I don't actually disagree with anything you stated in response. I was just keeping things high level so as not to detract from the point I was making, which has little to do with the nuances of digital audio encoding.

I do have to ask, though, why did you (1) quote the first definition for "incredible" according to Oxford, when the second, "difficult to believe; extraordinary", is closer to the use in my post and (2) quote the definition for "incredible" in the first place, when the word I actually used was "incredibly", meaning "to a great degree; extremely or unusually"?

 

[bigshot]

Thank you for making my point about the atmosphere here being toxic so abundantly clear.

Let me make something clear. You came in here with the intent to stir up crap. You didn't come in here to participate with us, you came in to take pokes at us with a stick. We answered you honestly. You tried to play disingenuous tricks and make believe you were something that you clearly aren't. You're a troll. I'm under no obligation to extend courtesy to you if you act like that. We've seen your kind before. We don't suffer fools gladly, but that doesn't mean that we don't welcome new posters. You're going to get just what you planted here. The longer you remain, everyone's patience with you is going to wear thin. I will talk past you to the lurkers so they know what you are. Others will quote particularly egregious lines out of your long disingenuous diatribes and use them like swords to skewer you. Gregorio will take you apart piece by piece like a watchmaker disassembling a watch. You'll self immolate and try to blame us. The mods will come in and delete everything and thread ban you and you will go away and we will go back to business as usual.

You're done here. Talk to the doctor that told you that you should relax for "medical reasons". I'm sure he'll tell you to let go and move on too.

at the end of the day we are all human. You never get anywhere if you are scared of making mistakes.

If you make mistakes and you don't own up to them honestly, you get nowhere even faster.