Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Tweakers' Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Comments on the comments :-)

Posted by David Aiken (A) on April 12, 2007 at 23:37:06

In Reply to: miles to go posted by CD on April 12, 2007 at 10:25:36:

Point 1- True that you can't prove a negative. True that the onus of proof is on the person making the claim, but that also cuts both ways in my view. If someone wants to claim that something for which no satisfactory proof has been provided really doesn't work, then I think the onus is on them to prove it doesn't work. After all, that is as much a claim as the claim that it does work, and is a claim that should be equally establishable in practice. Lack of proof that something does work is not proof that it doesn't, but there seem to be too many people around who assume that it is proof of just that. And I don't need to look up references on not being able to prove negatives since two thirds of my undergraduate degree was in philosophy including a few logic subjects. Yes, I could have expressed myself more correctly but my experience when I've tried that here in the past is that even more people get confused than when I do the 'quick and dirty' like I did this time :-(

Point 2- Right about placebo effects, but the standard comparison process used in assessing things like this with the subject being exposed to both conditions is really not comparable to the usual double blind, separate control and test group studies where the control group is only exposed to the placebo and the test group is exposed to the test item. People in placebo studies usually aren't in a position to say whether or not they experienced a difference because they are exposed to either the placebo or the test condition but not both. I don't think I've ever seen an audio comparison which I thought followed the usual placebo test process. That may be because the sort of placebo test I'm most familiar with is tests of the efficacy of new drugs.

Point 3- I haven't really followed the Audiocircle thread but I saw a bit about it somewhere some time ago. The fact that 2 different things measure identically on some tests does not prove that they are identical. There may be parameters that weren't tested and which would have shown differences. There may be relevant parameters we currently don't know about or can't test for which would show differences. I'm not being glib on that last one. CD players were testing basically identically before the jitter test was developed and people were claiming audible differences. The jitter test was developed and differences were found between machines that had measured identically or close thereto. Testing is an evolving science in itself. Identical test results on the obvious parameters is strongly suggestive that the things are identical but it still falls short of proof. One would also question the reliability of the test methods and instruments before completely accepting the results if we were talking tests of a standard like that required for scientific or legal purposes.

If I had to add something to your caveats, what I would add is simply to state that whether or not something works in practice does not depend on the explanation given, or on scientific theory. It simply depends on whether or not the thing does what is claimed. There have been lots of things that worked for years and the explanations/theory given for why they worked is now regarded as totally wrong. Since some of my background is in a health area, I like to point to cauterisation of wounds which was saving lives for at least a couple of thousand years before we discovered germs and the concept of sterilisation. Also, having a correct theory doesn't guarantee that something will work because you can fail to implement the theory correctly. Really, when it comes down to the crunch, whether or not something works depends on whether it performs as claimed. We know how cars work. Does your car work? Do we need to look up the science and the engineering or do we just turn the key in the ignition and put our foot to the pedals. Which approach and which answer really counts at a practical level? Damn the engineering and science—just turn the key, use the pedals, and if the thing starts moving down the road it's working. If it doesn't move it isn't working. Those conclusions are going to be true whether the science/engineering is theoretically correct or not. That doesn't ignore the value of science but the point I'm making is that a lot of the argument about the scientific validity or not of claims made in respect of some tweaks is really totally irrelevant when it comes to answering the question of whether or not the things actually work from a practical point of view which is really what we, as audiophiles rather than as designers/scientists/etc, are interested in.

David Aiken

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---