 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: RE: It depends on their reaction, and to what. posted by wazoo on June 30, 2007 at 10:50:05
...the placebo phenomenon works! Else it wouldn't be a concern, would it?
Could it be, that the only reason you dismiss this aspect so... dismissively, is that you're ashamed of not understanding it?
Also you use that word, "seems" -- got any scientific evidence to back that up?
clark
Follow Ups:
1) "...the placebo phenomenon works! Else it wouldn't be a concern, would it?" I fully understand the placebo effect. If you are implying that the teleportation tweak works by way of suggestion, then you are admitting that it is simply a sugar pill - a $60 sugar pill!
2) "Could it be, that the only reason you dismiss this aspect so... dismissively, is that you're ashamed of not understanding it?" There was *nothing* dismissive about my statement concerning placebo effect, and I cannot conceive how one could possibly infer from the aforementioned statement that I don't understand said phenomenon. I simply stated that the only means (in my view) by which the Clever Little Clock or the Teleportation Tweak might work is fideism.
3) "Also you use that word, "seems" -- got any scientific evidence to back that up?" I used the word 'seems' in the context of one's judiciousness - no scientific evidence is necessary. However, in this age of pseudoscience, prudence dictates that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinarily well-tested the evidence must be. The previous sentence applies to the two cited tweaks in spades – I cannot imagine more extraordinary claims. So, I hereby turn your request on you – got any scientific evidence to back these tweaks up? By the way, anecdotes do not a science make.
For a better understanding of my mode of thinking, I highly recommend Michael Shermer’s book “Why People Believe Weird Things” – I think there are some individuals here who would benefit from a little more skeptical thinking.
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
1) "...the placebo phenomenon works! Else it wouldn't be a concern, would it?" I fully understand the placebo effect. If you are implying that the teleportation tweak works by way of suggestion, then you are admitting that it is simply a sugar pill - a $60 sugar pill!
Not even close. Look at the original statement: "Anyone who believes that such a device actually works is certainly entitled to his viewpoint, but I think the operative word here is 'believes'. Placebo effect is a well documented phenomenon." The words "believes" and "placebo" are used there, as per usual, pejoratively. It was to the banal rhetoric I was responding by suggesting that "placebos" have been proven sometimes *to really work*, and not just in the mind but in the body.
2) "Could it be, that the only reason you dismiss this aspect so... dismissively, is that you're ashamed of not understanding it?" There was *nothing* dismissive about my statement concerning placebo effect, and I cannot conceive how one could possibly infer from the aforementioned statement that I don't understand said phenomenon. I simply stated that the only means (in my view) by which the Clever Little Clock or the Teleportation Tweak might work is fideism.
And there you go again, consigning the effect to an "exclusive reliance in... faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy." (I quote the dictionary.) If that isn't dismissive, then what is?
3) "Also you use that word, "seems" -- got any scientific evidence to back that up?" I used the word 'seems' in the context of one's judiciousness - no scientific evidence is necessary.
Hmm... Not necessary for *you*, anyway! But how does that comport with your... oh never mind.
However, in this age of pseudoscience,
Huh! Aren't you aware of what people like yourself is previous ages said about X-rays, continental drift, germ theory etc. etc.? "Pseudoscience!" There's a long and undistinguished history there, of inability to tell the difference; whenever new ideas are offered, the entrenched establishment rises as one in their contemptuous cry.
prudence dictates that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinarily well-tested the evidence must be.
You read that somewhere, right? And you think it's true therefore, without proof.
The previous sentence applies to the two cited tweaks in spades – I cannot imagine more extraordinary claims.
You got quite a paucity of imagination there, fella. Maybe you've spent too much time on the computer...
So, I hereby turn your request on you – got any scientific evidence to back these tweaks up? By the way, anecdotes do not a science make.
Thanks, Teach, I'll keep your instruction in mind.
Meanwhile, your not availing yourself of hypothesis in audio shows a distinctly unexperimental bent; yours is more a couch-potato science: "Clark, peel me a grape, would you, my good man?"
For a better understanding of my mode of thinking, I highly recommend Michael Shermer’s book “Why People Believe Weird Things” – I think there are some individuals here who would benefit from a little more skeptical thinking.
Wink wink, nod nod, eh?
Have you ever noticed how a patronizing attitude effortlessy accompanies every pronunciamento of the Old Guard?
clark
The original statement was yours, not mine – mine was a reply to the original statement and I did not use the terms ‘believes’ and ‘placebo’ pejoratively or dismissively. Once again, I used those terms as the only possible explanation (in my view) for the efficacy of the two ‘tweaks’ I cited. Your reiteration of the power of placebo to “really work” would seem to make my point – you are, in fact, implying that placebo is the mode of operation, just as I suspected.
For crying out loud, I stated that I wasn’t being dismissive about placebo effect. I NEVER claimed that I wasn’t dismissive about these so-called tweaks. Give me ONE good reason why I should NOT be. Stop distorting my statements – I’m being clear and direct. Calling me dismissive does not speak in support of your position.
I could teach a course on the history of science. You say ‘people like you’ without having any knowledge (apparently) of my educational background, or how I think. You seem to equate skepticism with a closed mind. That displays a gross misunderstanding of the term. Rigorous science demands testing, and the more extraordinary the hypothesis, the more extraordinarily well-tested the evidence must be – this is simply science and it is the arduous route by which every hypothesis ascends toward theory. You’re absolutely right; I did read that somewhere – Science 101. You are using a predictable tactic – deflection via ad hominem attacks. It’s usually an indication of a vacuous argument.
Did you actually suggest that mine is more a couch-potato science? Mine is RIGOROUS science; science without rigor is couch-potato science. Any hypothesis is first and foremost TESTABLE (again, Science 101). There’s no ‘wink wink, nod nod’ in my statement about skeptical thinking; once again, I’m being clear and direct. Who, by the way, is being patronizing (you or I)?
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
The students might well be left without an appreciation for the roles played by observation, experimentation and serendipity. "Mine is RIGOROUS science," sayeth the big wazoo, a jealous god. But he's so Old Testament! We have a new revelation: Love.
Love of music, love of sound, love of discernment. The laws of the priesthood (Leviticus, Deuteronomy) no longer must be imposed upon us. We are free. And should it happen that certain rules of the road (as it were) are discovered, then these may be tested and compiled to strengthen the result. Until then, fair's fair when it comes to play. We don't need no stinkin' schoolmarms with sticks standing over us on the altar.
And then I am further instructed that I began using "ad hominem attacks". Hmmm... Here we have a reply by the high wazoo to my mild question to Ole: "What say ye of people who have opinions on something audio without ever having listened to it?"
Anyone who suspects an 'extensively modified' travel alarm clock placed in one's home to improve an audio system (or TV) is snake oil seems to be employing good judgment in my view (ditto that for this teleportation nonsense).
"Snake oil." "Nonsense." Out of the blue, these things are said to me! To me, the man! Talk about an "ad hominem attack..."
clark
What, pray tell, is ‘ad hominem’ about my reply to your initial query?
Subject – Teleportation Tweak
Your query - "What say ye of people who have opinions on something audio without ever having listened to it?"
My reply – “Anyone who suspects an 'extensively modified' travel alarm clock placed in one's home to improve an audio system (or TV) is snake oil seems to be employing good judgment in my view (ditto that for this teleportation nonsense).”
Interpretation – You posed a question (see your query above). I responded with MY OPINION and clarified it as such by stating “in my view”. My opinion was directed to you – the asker of the question. My opinion was ABOUT a product and those individuals who share MY viewpoint. It was in NO WAY about you. There was nothing, I repeat, NOTHING ad hominem in my statement.
Clarification of a term - An ad hominem attack is one that attacks the character of the holder of an idea instead of the idea itself. For an example, please review your last reply to me in which you called me the following: “jealous god”, Old Testament” and a “schoolmarm”. I hope you can see the difference. You accurately quoted the translation of the Latin phrase as “to the man”, but you apparently fail to understand what that actually means.
Your final statement - "Snake oil." "Nonsense." Out of the blue, these things are said to me! To me, the man! Talk about an "ad hominem attack..." Please explain how this is “out of the blue”? Did you not pose a question (see your query above)? If you don’t want to hear anyone’s opinion, don’t ask such questions. One last time – that was NOT an ad hominem attack; it's called conversation.
My final (and I mean final) statement – Again and again and again, I have asked you to give me ONE good reason why I should NOT be dismissive about the aforementioned tweak. Your only answer has been repeated name-calling. I DO NOT believe in magic. Apparently you do, and you find my incredulity an affront – sorry about that. There are some things that I don’t have to try to know that they won’t work – like jumping off a thirty story building with a cape on my back and flying. If you’re so credulous as to believe that anything is possible, and the only way to *know* the truth about anything is to try it, then why don’t you give THAT a try and let me know how it works out for you!
I’m done.
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
I like your sentence Clark:-
> > > "There's a long and undistinguished history there, of inability to tell the difference; whenever new ideas are offered, the entrenched establishment rises as one in their contemptuous cry." < < <
Yes, Clark. The history (of science, of physics, of medicine) makes painful reading - particularly of the contemptuous cries !!! I wish those 'contemptuous' cries were still audible - they would drown out the beautiful music.
And, in a reply to wazoo's 'posting' "Rigorous science demands testing, and the more extraordinary the hypothesis, the more extraordinarily well-tested the evidence must be – this is simply science and it is the arduous route by which every hypothesis ascends toward theory. Any hypothesis is first and foremost TESTABLE."
Clark replied "The students might well be left without an appreciation for the roles played by observation, experimentation and serendipity. Love of music, love of sound. And should it happen that certain rules of the road (as it were) are discovered, then these may be tested and compiled to strengthen the result."
*****************
Of course a hypothesis should be testable, no one could argue against such a laudable sentiment, that is exactly how science can progress, but when the testing has to be done with any of the senses, particularly the hearing, it is amazing how downright reluctant and resistant many people are to try for themselves, even when faced with reassurances from someone who they might usually trust. Nor is it purely reluctance and resistance - it can become more an extreme vendetta, as though for some people the fear of having their belief structure challenged is greater than their desire to have good sound !!!
I am, precisely at this moment, engaged in a such a dialogue (for want of a better word) over on Propeller Head !!
Regards,
May Belt.
1) In science, there is no "should be" in regard to the testability of a hypothesis. It is built into the definition of the term - simple as that.
2) I'm not afraid of trying new things. I have tried a number of things that fractured long-held beliefs. Those things, however, were presented with rational arguments. I have Magneplanar speakers and two examples of the aforementioned are:
A) I tried an arrangement whereby my speakers were set up facing one another and I was facing their sides - amazing nearfield imaging and absolutely no problem with frequency balance.
B) I reversed my panels such that I am now listening to the pole-piece side (through tiny holes in the magnet structure) - more laid back presentation that is otherwise unchanged.
3) The subject in this case is a 'tweak' whereby one dials a number and special signals are transmitted via the phone to the caller with the result that the caller's audio system will be magically improved.
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
For a couple of decades I did optical physics and engineering, and no one ever gave us any crap about trusting the eye. But as you say, when it comes to the ear, remonstrances ring loud. (Or so I hear...)
Cherry-picking sentences, as you do, I particularly like this one:
"For some people the fear of having their belief structure challenged is greater than their desire to have good sound !!!"
Such people are heart-dead.
clark
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]