In Reply to: 100% Wrong posted by Charles Hansen on September 22, 2005 at 09:58:33:
He actually took the trouble to try the tweak under question.Listened, heard no effect, and attributed the effect others claimed to hear to the power of suggestion--the same conclusion I reached about the IC.
He didn't make a flat-out pronouncement as to whether the thing could work or not.
He had a lot more space to work with, so he could spare more words, and he was, I admit, a bit more delicate than I was. But he had the luxury of approaching the subject cautiously--not something I could do in the space I was allowed. But clearly he concludes, by the end of the article--by the middle in fact--that the technology is bogus. "I've got a gut feeling that it's total nonsense," or something like that (I'm quoting from memory).
I encourage everybody to go back, re-read what I wrote, then read this:
>>Without any concepts of how scientific knowledge is gleaned from intuition, hypothesis, and meticulous investigation, or what it accepts today as truth, anything is possible. Without the anchor of science, we are free to drift from one idea to another, accepting or "keeping an open mind about" as many outrageous tenets as did the "superstitious natives" we used to scorn 50 years ago. (We still do, but it's unfashionable to admit it... The notion that a belief should have at least some objective support is scorned as being "closed-minded," which has become a new epithet. In order to avoid that dread appellation, we are expected to pretend to be open to the possibility that today's flight of technofantasy may prove to be tomorrow's truth, no matter how unlikely. Well, I don't buy that.<<
I did go beyond what JGH said in one important way, and it was, indeed, the main point of the May column: I suggested motives--that these beliefs persist in high end audio because they are profitable. But other than that, though the tone is different, the gist is remarkably similar.
Jim
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I disagree - Jim Austin 11:49:21 09/22/05 (10)
- Bad Science and Arrogance - Charles Hansen 12:29:35 09/22/05 (9)
- Getting Bored - Jim Austin 12:44:29 09/22/05 (8)
- Re: Getting Bored - john curl 18:20:35 09/23/05 (0)
- So you were wrong before... - Charles Hansen 14:27:38 09/22/05 (6)
- Re: So you were wrong before... - Wendell Narrod 11:17:27 09/23/05 (5)
- I find Mr. Hansen's views both cogent and persuasive. - vacuous 11:50:18 09/23/05 (3)
- Re: I find Mr. Hansen's views both cogent and persuasive. - Wendell Narrod 12:49:14 09/23/05 (2)
- Re: I find Mr. Hansen's views both cogent and persuasive. - John Atkinson 06:56:45 09/24/05 (1)
- Re: I find Mr. Hansen's views both cogent and persuasive. - john curl 14:24:35 09/23/05 (0)
- Re: So you were wrong before... - john curl 11:28:17 09/23/05 (0)