General Asylum

RE: wrong here, sorry. does a phd in physics also include logic?

70.16.99.162

In Reply to: RE: wrong here, sorry. does a phd in physics also include logic? posted by Tom Schuman on March 31, 2008 at 04:11:26

Hi Tom. We're not far apart. You write:

>>But a successful ABX test would also be NECESSARY to show that such differences were objective in the sense of statistically speaking, having been caused by the cable in question AND hearable by humans!!<<

Absolutely true. My point was that a null result does not rule out the possibility that real, potentially audible differences exist. And by "potentially audible" I mean audible, in principle, by certain experienced and well-trained members of the population, under ideal conditions. It's an important point.

>>In effect, necessary to show that the cable in question has been tested by a known method and found to be effective in a known way.<<

Well, yes and no. If your goal is to prove efficacy, then, yes, it IS necessary. But many people, rightly or wrongly, are willing (and eager) to trust their own experiences. They don't require proof. So for them it is NOT necessary. They are not looking for consumer advocates to protect them from themselves.

Now, on to the question of rights. Clearly, this depends where you live. My suggestion that this is a first-amendment issue was silly, obviously, since this is taking place in the UK. But I'm an American and I stand by what I wrote. In most respects I tend towards what most people would call liberal, politically. Yet I also have libertarian tendencies. I'm not looking for a nanny government to protect me. I'm okay--barely--with a government that regulates speech that's demonstrably false (aka 'false advertising'). I'm definitely NOT okay with a government that requires scientific proof for every claim (or even every potentially provable claim) that anyone makes. That, to me, would be a dangerous infringement, and could be used to limit speech in ways that wouldn't be good for the country.

>>Nobody is saying that subjective differences in perception DON'T EXIST<<

Agreed, but that's not my point. I'm saying that a null result in an ABX test doesn't imply that the differences are subjective. There could still be objective changes behind those perceptions; we've merely failed to establish that fact.

As for invoking the second amendment --

>>just as the second amendment has little to do with protecting criminals who enjoy handguns. <<

The second amendment, even in the interpretation radical gun-owners prefer, doesn't guarantee our right to kill people--only to own guns. The first amendment guarantees the right to USE the weapon--our pens, tongues, or keyboards--while the second amendment guarantees only our right to OWN weapons. The bill of rights doesn't say we can kill indiscriminately, but it DOES say we can talk indiscriminately.(The most radical interpretations of the 2nd amendment--and to me the ones that make the most sense--argue that we have the right to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from our government. But only a small conservative fringe these days argues in favor of the right to arm ourselves to prepare for an insurrection. But I digress...)

Cheers,
Jim

Follow Ups:

RE: wrong here, sorry. does a phd in physics also include logic? - Tom Schuman 08:47:02 03/31/08 (3)
- I don't disagree... - Jim Austin 08:53:39 03/31/08 (2)
  - i guess we're all free to waste our money as we wish... - Tom Schuman 09:30:55 03/31/08 (1)
    - That's it exactly. - Jim Austin 09:43:01 03/31/08 (0)

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.