|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.75.16.51
In Reply to: RE: "This is how science works and they will welcome and publish contradictory scientific data" posted by andy19191 on September 15, 2007 at 13:51:58
"Nobody with a grasp of how sound propagates would object to jars of pebbles in the corner of a room being held up as an example of something that fails to audibly modify the sound field but may influence sound perception in some people. I would not have objected."Excellent Strawman Argument (Appeal to Authority). You'd make an excellent token peer.
Thanks for making my point more vivid.
~ Cheerio
Edits: 09/15/07 09/15/07Follow Ups:
> Excellent Strawman Argument; that's called Appeal to Authority. You'd
> obviously make an excellent token peer.
It is an appeal to the scientific laws governing the propagation of sound. This is indeed an authority and one that all that have spotted the usefulness of science tend to recognise.
> Thanks for making my point more vivid.
I think you may have to expand the strawman bit to really make it stick.
I have the sneaking suspicion that you're just being argumentative and really have no idea what the laws governing the propagation of sound are nor whom you can consult to support your non-argument.~ Cheerio
> I have the sneaking suspicion that you're just being argumentative and
> really have no idea what the laws governing the propagation of sound are
> nor whom you can consult to support your non-argument.
Not sure about the argumentative. I am responding because you posted but not in a wholly serious manner it must be admitted.
I am afraid you will have to judge my knowledge of the laws of sound propagation from the content of my postings. I am not going to give you an authority.
My non-argument has not drawn a convincing rebuttal (not that know which non-argument you are referring to) so it presumably stands as the last word?
Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what I did. Your posts have no content. That's why I said you were being argumentative (and continue to be). Not to worry -- even if you don't know these laws you hold so dear, it's quite easy to find experts out there who will back you up 100%. LOL
> Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what I did. Your posts have no
> content.
Which raises the question what you have found to reply to?
> Not to worry -- even if you don't know these laws you hold so dear, it's
> quite easy to find experts out there who will back you up 100%.
Why do I need backing up? The point was that the readers of your JASA article would be experts knowing these laws and how to use them to determine whether or not your product could audibly change the sound field. Whether I am an expert or not makes little difference.
You fail to grasp the original point of my mentioning the article -- that supposed scientific experts in the field jumped to the same conclusion you and numerous others have: the concept of the "rocks in jar" sounds too ridiculous to investigate further, thus should be pronounced "rubbish." Ditto for the readers of that austere publication. Arrogance and ingorance, plain and simple (no offense to you, personally).Making the Journal and its readership appear even more foolish, if that is possible, is that the author apparently boosted much of the material for his "article" off of Wikipedia -- Hell, a fifth-grader could do better than that!
As for your argument, it continues to be a Appeal to Authority, a rather weak one at that. Can I suggest you get a hold of the Skeptics Handbook? You will be better prepared and have higher entertainment value when trolling these waters.
~ Cheerio
> that supposed scientific experts in the field jumped to the same
> conclusion you and numerous others have: the concept of the "rocks in jar"
> sounds too ridiculous to investigate further, thus should be pronounced
> "rubbish."
Not at all. They evaluated the ability of your rocks in a jar to modify the sound field using the known scientific laws and then they pronounced rubbish. For your argument to work you must pick a group of people that do not know about the science of acoustics. Have you tried to convince audiophiles?
> Ditto for the readers of that austere publication. Arrogance and
> ingorance, plain and simple.
It cannot be that austere if it contains light hearted articles of the kind to raise your hackles.
> As for your argument, it continues to be a Appeal to Authority, a rather
> weak one at that.
It is an appeal to the authority of scientific knowledge. I would suggest that for matters in the scientific domain this is the strongest authority that mankind has yet devised. Or would you disagree?
> Can I suggest you get a hold of the Skeptics Handbook. You need to be
> better prepared when trolling these waters.
I have no objections to being better prepared but the "serious" sceptic material tends to be a bit too earnest and judgemental for my tastes. I am expect one or two articles might be entertaining but it will have to wait for a holiday break.
You are suggesting that the author - or anyone asociated with the Journal - had a single thought regarding the "rocks in a jar." They did not evaluate anything. Obviously, they cut and pasted some paragraphs from Wikipedia. Just some old men sitting around at the end of their careers, giggling.
That is not science. It's stupidity.
~ Cheerio
> You are suggesting that the author - or anyone asociated with the Journal
> - had a single thought regarding the "rocks in a jar." They did not
> evaluate anything.
I think you will find they did evaluate what a jar in the corner of a room would do to the sound field. This does not involve lots of hard sums or complicated experiments but a brief flash of thought based around the laws of acoustics and experience of where the wrinkles may lie.
> Obviously, they cut and pasted some paragraphs from Wikipedia.
No sane person uses wikipedia as the source of anything that is important. Certainly not someone writing an academic paper even a lighthearted one.
> Just some old men sitting around at the end of their careers, giggling.
The author of your paper is young. I suspect it may be a requirement for mustering the effort for that sort of thing.
> ~ Cheerio
Does that mean I get the last word?
That is quite an assumption on your part that any thought was given to the jar of rocks. What proof do you have? "A brief flash of thought" -- that is so funny! Is that what you think science is? What they were probably having was hot flashes. LOL
~ Cheerio
> That is quite an assumption on your part that any thought was given to the
> jar of rocks. What proof do you have?
A knowledge of how my peers think. Is that proof?
> "A brief flash of thought" -- that is so funny! Is that what you think
> science is?
When it comes to jars of rocks in the corner of the room brief is about the limit.
Do not seem to have had the last word. Need to hang on a bit longer?
Not really. You are perhaps the peer of the author of the article, but you are not my peer. I will leave you to your flashes of thought or hot flashes, as the case may be.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: