[bigshot]

Irony is never popular. No satirist ever died happy.

 

[Wyville]

While I can definitely understand that perspective, I think it is disingenuous and dishonest to profess having no ulterior motive, just to be proven otherwise after. He would not have come anywhere close to being treated this way if he approached the forum with respect and did not attempt to deconstruct science for his own profitable motive.

I find it completely disgusting how the audiophile world is infested with anti-science snake oilers. The way they subterfuge science from the ground up is not unlike how cults brainwash the fundamental connection to reality of the victims. While I was never quite convinced by the anti-science attempt, if it wasn't for experienced posters here, I would have been out of arguments, and be left with a lingering doubt about my understanding of audio science. THAT was the danger and absolutely atrocious what was attempted here. Like I said in the FH7 thread, it sounded like FUD to me and indeed it was exactly as I thought.

This forums likes to speculate that "outsiders" have an ulterior motive and I don't. My motivation is purely about science itself (how to construct a scientific argument, etc). This forum likes to pretend "outsiders" are anti-science and I am not. As soon as I say something that people do not like, I get angry responses and personal attacks instead of anyone actually trying to have a civilised conversation.

The thing is, I love science and I have dedicated my life to it. So when I see people who clearly have an interest in science do things incorrectly, I get the urge to correct that. There are several members here that can teach me an awful lot about sound engineering, but when it comes to science (its methodological principles, etc) that is very much the other way around. However, if I have to wade through a torrent of abuse every time I post because people can't see the difference between my hobby (audio) and my profession (science), then I walk away as I did.

Think of me as you must, but also think about why it is that in this forum the bullies always "win".

 

[SilentNote]

This forums likes to speculate that "outsiders" have an ulterior motive and I don't. My motivation is purely about science itself (how to construct a scientific argument, etc). This forum likes to pretend "outsiders" are anti-science and I am not. As soon as I say something that people do not like, I get angry responses and personal attacks instead of anyone actually trying to have a civilised conversation.

The thing is, I love science and I have dedicated my life to it. So when I see people who clearly have an interest in science do things incorrectly, I get the urge to correct that. There are several members here that can teach me an awful lot about sound engineering, but when it comes to science (its methodological principles, etc) that is very much the other way around. However, if I have to wade through a torrent of abuse every time I post because people can't see the difference between my hobby (audio) and my profession (science), then I walk away as I did.

Think of me as you must, but also think about why it is that in this forum the bullies always "win".

Maybe because there's a something towards being sincere, honest and truthful.

 

[Wyville]

Maybe because there's a something towards being sincere, honest and truthful.

How do you mean?

 

[Wyville]

Maybe because there's a something towards being sincere, honest and truthful.

I guess you were referring to my cable reviews that caused such a stir again. I say "again" because contrary to what some people here pretend, I have never made a secret about it and I have been attacked for it here before. Moreover, as I stated very clearly earlier on, I am not interested in discussing whether or not cables actually make a difference. All I wanted to do was point out that the arguments presented here (on a multitude of topics) are not constructed consistently. It is not about arguing right or wrong, it is about how the argument is constructed.

I very much doubt I will ever be able to convince anyone here to look critically at their own arguments in order for them to improve their quality, as long as people are more concerned about keeping things polarised. I will leave here, but suggest you read something and not just read it, but try to understand the key points it makes and reflect on those for yourself. I will highlight one of those and leave a link to the entire speech. It's by Richard Feynman:

"I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

Link: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm​

 

[gregorio]

[1] I very much doubt I will ever be able to convince anyone here to look critically at their own arguments in order for them to improve their quality,
[2] as long as people are more concerned about keeping things polarised.
[3] I will leave here ...
[4] but suggest you read something and not just read it, but try to understand the key points it makes and reflect on those for yourself.

1. I very much doubt you'll be able to convince anyone either, considering how astonishingly uncritical your own published arguments are. Those who live in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones!

2. Huh, haven't you read the name of this sub-forum? Of course we're "concerned about keeping things polarised", that's the whole point of this sub-forum, to "polarise" the actual facts/science from superstition, myth and snake oil!

3. As ALREADY stated, either stay and learn something about the science of sound and about the process of "science" in general or leave, because if you ignore the name of this sub-forum and try to pervert it, you will obviously continue to experience a poor "atmosphere" here!

4. As with point 1, why don't you take your own advice? I would add, not just "understand the key points" but understand their context and how they are applicable. In other words, Richard Feynman was correct, so why don't you apply that to your own arguments and why don't you learn how it applies to the science of sound, BEFORE you go mouthing off to everyone here???? Jeez

G

 

[SilentNote]

Nice read. Although if you think that speech enables you to write off whatever you wish from the sound science forum as cargo cult science, you are hugely mistaken.

 

[Steve999]

Phonons!

 

[bigshot]

This forums likes to speculate that "outsiders" have an ulterior motive and I don't

If you're new to the forum, why would you feel qualified to generalize about it? Wouldn't you want to hang around and figure it out first? If you want to be a part of the forum and participate with us, wouldn't it be a bad idea to go in being critical of the people you want to chat with? If you don't want an "us and them" relationship, you might try being a part of "us". The problem isn't science, it's being social, it's just common sense. You aren't playing by the group's rules and you are getting thumped because of it. The solution isn't to say that no one else is playing by the rules properly. It's to start making changes to your own attitude and mode of participation.

I've been here for fifteen years, and I know that this group doesn't hold grudges if you sincerely make an effort to get along. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything. It just means that you have to maintain respect and back up what you say. Repeating baseless claims, ignoring well founded questions, and engaging in semantic arguments and logical fallacies is how you get in trouble here. We have no patience for that. The situation is salvageable, but you are the one who has to change to fit the group. The group won't change to fit you.

Also, conciseness and organization in your replies is a virtue. If you start out a post with a belligerent sentence or fallacious argument, only a couple of us will bother to read any further. I know I don't bother to read long paragraphs when they start out like that. I've learned that the introductory sentence is a good way to figure out if the rest of the words are worth my time to read.

Here is an example of a sentence that stops me dead and causes me to not read any further...

I very much doubt I will ever be able to convince anyone here to look critically at their own arguments in order for them to improve their quality,

If you don't see a purpose in your own words, I am going to agree with you. It's like a needle scratch on a record and I just move on to the next thing.

 

[chaos215bar2]

This forums likes to speculate that "outsiders" have an ulterior motive and I don't. My motivation is purely about science itself (how to construct a scientific argument, etc). This forum likes to pretend "outsiders" are anti-science and I am not. As soon as I say something that people do not like, I get angry responses and personal attacks instead of anyone actually trying to have a civilised conversation.

The thing is, I love science and I have dedicated my life to it. So when I see people who clearly have an interest in science do things incorrectly, I get the urge to correct that. There are several members here that can teach me an awful lot about sound engineering, but when it comes to science (its methodological principles, etc) that is very much the other way around. However, if I have to wade through a torrent of abuse every time I post because people can't see the difference between my hobby (audio) and my profession (science), then I walk away as I did.

Think of me as you must, but also think about why it is that in this forum the bullies always "win".

The problem is not understanding the difference between a hobby and a profession. The problem is squaring someone who’s “dedicated [their] life to science” with reviews devoid of anything resembling it.

It doesn’t help that you come in making a lot of noise about how most of what goes on here isn’t “science”, and then play the misunderstood, bullied victim when called out. Help us understand how your reviews fit into a life dedicated to science, because right now the evidence points to your posts largely being a bunch of hot air.

 

[bigshot]

Anyone who has a younger sister knows their favorite trick... walk into a room where your older brother is sitting quietly and suddenly yell out, “OW! MOM! HE’S HITTING ME!” Then she smiles and waits for mom to come and blame big brother. By the time mom arrives, big brother actually is mad and gets punished for it. I see similar stuff here too sometimes.

 

[gregorio]

The problem is not understanding the difference between a hobby and a profession.

That is essentially it. Having said that, this case is not entirely typical. If we accept @Wyville claim of "expertise" in the science of the human perception of sound (psychoacoustics) then a professional should understand how that specific field fits in with science as a whole. That's what he appears to be missing, he's applying his knowledge of the field of psychoacoustics to all the other fields of science, rather than understanding psychoacoustics is just one small part. This is a particular problem with psychoacoustics because much of it is based on hypotheses, working hypotheses and competing theories. For example, even with something as seemingly simple as pitch recognition, science doesn't yet have all the answers, there are competing theories and it seems likely (almost certain) that the actual answer is some combination of the competing theories but that's just an assumption, each of those theories have demonstrable/proven flaws (the missing fundamental for example) and it's possible that something as yet undiscovered will contributing to our (science's) understanding. Because this is the basis of almost all psychoacoustics, the basis of most areas of scientific research and of some other entire scientific fields, such as Theoretical Physics (by definition), @Wyville appears to incorrectly believe it's the basis of all of science. This is exemplified by his Feynman quote:

"If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."

@Wyville doesn't seem able to comprehend that we're NOT "putting a lot of ideas together to make a theory", we are restating theories that were made many decades or a century+ ago, for which there is overwhelming supporting evidence, NO demonstrable/proven flaws, NO competing theories and which are therefore either axioms or can reliably be considered as axioms for the practical application of the science. We only run into problems AFTER the resultant acoustic sound waves leave the audiophile/consumer equipment (and enters human ears) but BEFORE that point we're not dealing with hypotheses or competing hypotheses/theories but the most demonstrable/proven and rationally uncontested of scientific facts. Unfortunately/Sadly, I had to insert the word "rationally" in there, because there is a tiny segment of humanity (audiophile marketers and those who believe them) who "irrationally" contest them. The false implication (or outright lie) at the heart of much audiophile marketing (and opinion) is that science "doesn't know for sure", that we ARE dealing with flawed competing theories and that it IS cutting edge research, which of course they claim to be doing/leading!

G

 

[bigshot]

This reminds me of the guy who wanted to talk about psychology all the time. He’s the one that kept saying we can’t know anything because we don’t know everything.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I find it a little sad that disagreements about some idea so often degrade into attacks on the poster himself. I won't be hypocritical and pretend that I'm perfect, all the regulars of this forum have seen me trying to e-destroy someone. but anytime it happens(me or anybody else sharing my views), I feel like in a way we've lost the argument.

I would tend to think the opposite: that personal assaults thrown in the context of a logical argument does not and should not be used to discredit said logical argument. Because it is the witting tactic or unwitting tendency of the anti-logical side to inflame emotions. Also because, by definition, in a logic-vs-illogic fight, one side needs to think strenuously in logic while the other does not--it simply has to throw up another flowery screen of words as soon as one is shot down. It is not a fair fight from the beginning. Expecting the same level of "civility" from both sides (while one side wreaks barbaric havoc on sane thought with everyone's implicit approval) would the last of my worries in moderating such a fight.

 

[castleofargh]

The problem is not understanding the difference between a hobby and a profession. The problem is squaring someone who’s “dedicated [their] life to science” with reviews devoid of anything resembling it.

It doesn’t help that you come in making a lot of noise about how most of what goes on here isn’t “science”, and then play the misunderstood, bullied victim when called out. Help us understand how your reviews fit into a life dedicated to science, because right now the evidence points to your posts largely being a bunch of hot air.

TBH, his reviews don't claim to be scientific research. while for better or for worst, this section is called Sound Science. can't really blame the guy for having certain expectations toward a section with that name.

I would tend to think the opposite: that personal assaults thrown in the context of a logical argument does not and should not be used to discredit said logical argument. Because it is the witting tactic or unwitting tendency of the anti-logical side to inflame emotions. Also because, by definition, in a logic-vs-illogic fight, one side needs to think strenuously in logic while the other does not--it simply has to throw up another flowery screen of words as soon as one is shot down. It is not a fair fight from the beginning. Expecting the same level of "civility" from both sides (while one side wreaks barbaric havoc on sane thought with everyone's implicit approval) would the last of my worries in moderating such a fight.

a kids behavior should be handled the way we would a kid. if it's not you own and you get bored of going nowhere talking to him, ignore him and after a while he'll go away. to quote our wise 56k ancestors, don't feed the trolls. if the situation is that of an old kid throwing a tantrum while you guys are bullying him to try and chase him away, as a modo, I think you're the baddies.
failure to communicate should lead to not communicating, it should not lead to throwing poo at the other guys face to show dominance. we're supposed to have moved on from that level of communication.

oh! and it's against the rules.

Posting Etiquette

1. Be polite. We encourage debating in the forums, but please avoid defamatory statements, personal attacks, racial slurs, name-calling, and cursing at others in the forums.
2. Head-Fi's forums are generally geared for headphone high fidelity enthusiasts, but the several categories of forums within Head-Fi generally allow for discussion of general audio topics and even completely non-headphone / non-audio / non-music topics (e.g., the Members' Lounge forum). We ask that you please make a concerted effort to post in the appropriate forums.
3. Considering that our member base is made up of people from a wide range of ages, from pre-adults to senior citizens -- and also a great variety of cultures, beliefs and social standards -- swearing on the forums is not allowed. Our general standard is this: if it would not be allowed on U.S. network primetime television, it will most likely not be allowed on Head-Fi's forums. If you need further clarification, feel free to contact a moderator.
4. Do not post copyrighted or trademarked material without first obtaining the express permission to do so by the copyright or trademark holder or a legally authorized agent of the copyright or trademark holder. In short, this means no posting verbatim copies of copyrighted articles or logos without first obtaining the proper permission to do so.
5. If what you want to post includes words/phrases like "placebo," "expectation bias," "ABX," "blind testing," etc., please post it in the Sound Science forum.
6. We do not allow the discussion of politics or religion in any of our forums.
7. Do not cross-post. (Cross-posting is posting the same post to more than one thread, or the same thread to more than one forum.)
8. Use only one username. Multiple profiles for the same individual are not allowed. Use of multiple profiles may result in an immediate ban.

1. is number one for a reason. maybe before breaking that rule, consider referring to 2. and advise the poster about making some efforts so his posts are about sound, science or both, and not about eye witness stuff. if that was done properly, respectfully, and the guy clearly was from another dimension where the laws of physics are different and a subjective impression is also an objective fact, I would be inclined to try and intervene more to "relocate" that person toward the nearest space time rift, like maybe the cable section or an appreciation thread.