|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.126.197.238
Well Art is one of my 3 favorite audio reviewers (Jack Roberts and Dick Olsher being the other two), but I disagree with AD's opinion piece in the August Stereophile. Better audio reproduction is NOT a matter of faith: It is easily proven via blind tests. I've converted many non-audiophiles by getting them to bring their favorite CDs, and comparing them blind to my vinyl system (where I have the same record on vinyl). Most are speechless, as the superiority of my vintage system is so marked. I remember when my father was moved to tears when he heard my vinyl version of one of his favorite classical CDs. I don't need or want any silly ritual. I simply want the best audio system I can afford. If some audio component is markedly superior to one I own, I'll get it (yes, if the price is right!). Faith has got the human race into a lot of trouble, and continues to block advancement right here and right now.
Follow Ups:
.
Seems to me 'old school' posts inevitably have the common demominators of:
1. Vinyl is superior
2. Negative feedback is bad, and tubes are good
3. Blind tests are the only way to go
4. Anyone who disagrees in any way is categorically wrong
All that changes is the title of the thread, which usually coincides with a response to an article in an audiophile review magagine.
The fact that the same general post appears again and again is a sign that someone wants a little attention.
The fact that we tend to respond would seem to indicate something as well...
Your blind tests are not blind enough. Unless you run a series of double-blind, level-matched ABX tests, blind AB tests like you describe are just as unscientific, just as haphazard, just as flawed as sighted listening. They give the semblance of science, but are merely 'sciency'.
If a job worth's doing, it's worth doing properly, or not at all.
I'm reasonably sure you are performing blind AB tests instead of double-blind, level-matched ABX tests because you are getting results that point to differences between amplifiers, which according to every legitimately scientific test, simply don't exist. This is the only no-faith position to hold in audio; I tried it, and it's a musically unsatisfying place and totally removed from the kind of results you get.
Actually, what the ABX tests have found is that the difference between amplifiers can't be detected *if* they're driven in the linear range and equalized to match one another. That's an interesting possibility, but it isn't the same as saying that all amps sound the same. They manifestly do not.
Actually the tests you speak of are medical tests adapted by engineers (engineers are NOT scientists nor I think do they understand scientific methodology in any real credible sense because if they did they would not be adapting them this way). The fact that it relies upon statistical modelling is problematic for a number of reasons.The first is that stats lie to get results the tester desires at the outset. They typically use a 10 to 16 trial test and wish to satisfy the .05% statistical level of significance - this means a subject/listener needs to choose correctly 9/10 times.
But if a listener score 6/10 they are deemed to NOT meed statistical significance and therefore some putz will say that A sounds the same as B or people can't hear the difference between A and B.
Unfortunately what these hacks never mention is that if you score 6/10 ten times to 59/100 correct "guesses" you ALSO MEET the .05% statistical significance level meaning that if you are correct 59/100 that is EXACTLY THE SAME as 9/10. In fact it is more "credible" since more trials/guesses increased the level of reliability than less trials.
And this is just the statistics they fail miserably on and we have not even started on the "Validity of the test."
Validity means the test PERFECTLY resembles EXACTLY the way a person NORMALLY listens to music at home. That is not A/B/X methodology and does not incorporate a forced choice or switch box into the thing. They make no mention of the psychological FACT that music listening uses one hemisphere of the brain - decision making uses the other - any test asks the brain to use the decision making hemisphere which is now ALSO doing the listening because it knows it has to make a decision.
This has been illustrated countless times in the education field and is called test stress (no matter how benign you try to make it - it is invasive and decreases the level of validity of the test).
Having said that I am not at all against basic blind tests because they can are helpful - but it does not need to be a test like the medical industry. Those tests were for drugs vs sugar pills. The guy either gets better or he doesn't and it's a physical response - not a "preference" response requiring interpretation of a listener.
I proposed a blind test methodology that would satisfy "practically" this hobby previously. It doesn't take long to set-up has no contact from the listeners and setters of the tests. This takes out price and sight bias and the listeners don't even know the brands they will be listening to that day. Since the players are set to repeat the person conducting the test can be removed from the building. Zero contact with any listener.
1) two rooms of identical size - each room has a stereo covered via black light - no one can see the stereo.
2) level is matched
3) both rooms play the same disc on repeat at the same volume levels.
4) a selection of classically/jazz trained musicians who have an ear for correct pitch and notes (30 listeners)
5) each listener gets a card - they listen to both rooms as much as they like.
6) drop their card in the box outside the room they think sounds better.
7) add up cards for each room. Determine if preconceived notions of what sounds better is deemed so in the real world.
So if one major corporation puts out white papers that says SS amps with narrow multi-driver speakers in a deeper than wider cabinet will sound better than anything that is NOT designed in this way then room A will be the best of this design that said major corporation supports. In room B a Soundlab with LAM tube amps - the antithesis of said major corporation - or something like an Audio Note system or something like a big ole Horn SET.
If major corporation is correct then professionally trained musicians in such a listening session should choose it 27-3 or some easily blow room B out of the water scenario. If however it is closer to 50-50 split or room B mops the floor with room A then you have to consider the marketing force of a billion dollar company inventing pseudo science in order to generate sales.
Any Double blind test of STEREO speakers that places only ONE loudspeaker (not both of them) on a shifter machine in the middle of a room (not taking into account specific set-up recommended by the manufacturer or amplifiers/cables etc) for listeners is complete BS. You'd be surprised at the sheeple who eat that stuff up as being "scientific." LOL. It seems so because they spent so much money on the machines and space etc. If they spent large it must be right - right?
They dismiss any dissent as "nuisance variables" (thanks E-stat for providing the link). No real science considers deeply all variables that could influence a given test - but this is science run by people who want to make a profit selling their vinegar as fine wine.
Edits: 07/11/12
Your criticisms of ABX tests are well taken. I could add some more. However, I do believe that ABX tests have valid uses in the study of basic auditory perception. And even when applied to complex audio signals, they can demonstrate that a difference *is* audible to a desired degree of statistical certainty. In that context, it's interesting to note that most of the ABX results I've seen validate, rather than contradict, the notion that there are audible differences between components.
It's also probably true that if something can't be ABX'd, it's fairly subtle, or occurs rarely. I can point to clearly audible phenomena that would confound any practical ABX test, using standard methodology, such as very high Q resonances that are clearly audible but occur only after many hours with random program material. But ABX'ing can be useful nonetheless, as are simpler level-matched blind tests, which are I believe more useful with complex audio phenomena since they avoid the perceptual confusion to which you refer. If we're honest, we'll recognize that confirmation bias plays an unfortunate role in our perceptions, and that there is no way to eliminate it in a sighted comparison.
..at least the first half.
Pseudoscience is not the same as real science.
Amateur DBTs seem to mask small audible differences.
it's been a long time - 1995 when I was conducting blind tests and writing papers at university so there are a few bits I may be fuzzy on as all my textbooks and notes are back in Canada.But as I recall more trials reduced type 2 errors. More trials for subtle difference = more "reliable" results = lower likely hood of fluke. Which is why certain tests run millions of times in simulations to be more assured of the results. Significance level is a statistic based percentage but lower trials have higher error rates of predictability. Which is why people dislike low trial tests in audio.
If the person scores 6/10 in a 10 trial test they would not meet .05 significance and would be deemed a failure (could not tell a from B any better than chance. But if they run that person through ten times and he/she scored 6/10 ten times with one miss for 59/100 they would indeed meet the .05% significance level to satisfy them not having made the selections via pure chance. One test they're said to be failures but had the test continued they may indeed "pass." And more trials would be more "reliable." This is a problem with stats - it does not take into account the listener's making a mistake nor does it take into account that for possibly significant portions of music playback A is in fact sounding the same as B.
It's seems to me all the people who run all of these tests spend so much of their time on "reliability" and very little time focusing on "validity" which is arguably the 95% most important part of the test. If the test was perfectly valid and all accounted for it would only require one trial.
But it's been a very long time and I don't have my materials. And these days I'm starting to forget where I put my keys and umbrella. So...
Edits: 07/11/12
"each room has a stereo covered via black light"
And if you think some one's catching a dim outline you just turn it up?
Successful engineers are good scientists, just of the applied variety. Reviewers on the other hand...
Rick
Not really. Scientists look at big picture stuff. On this issue they have not. Certainly some engineers have and they toss this on its ear. I didn't mean to insult good engineers who do understand the big picture stuff. I was referring the ones who don't see any problem with 16 trial DBTs or take notice of validity issues. Which is odd since other fields such as psychology have found issues with it so I wonder why the "bad" engineers can;t figure it out.
"... meaning that if you are correct 59/100 that is EXACTLY THE SAME as 9/10."
Incorrect.
Go read the linked article, in particular Les Leventhal's contribution starting on page 3, for an analysis of how the number of trials (in the test) determines basic statistical properties, e.g. pay attention to details concerning Type 2 errors.
Once you have you should understand that you cannot extrapolate between tests with large differences in the number of trials (10 v. 100).
Shorts the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
Yes you are correct they are not the same - they both meet the .05 significance level but for subtle differences a high number of trials reduces error. Ie more trials is better. A s noted from your link "Thus, for subtle differences, a very large number of trials is necessary to bring down Type 2 error risk to acceptable limits when Type 1 error is limited to .05."
It's quite late here and I am quite tired - it's also been 15 years since I ran these tests in psychology. What doesn't seem to be discussed here beyond the stats is the difference between "reliability" and "validity" - the latter is the most important aspect - without that you could be reliably producing numbers that are backing something that does not relate to valid hypothesis. Or another way you could be reliably getting the same answer over and over and over to the wrong question.
I'm only up to page 5 and will have to look at it tomorrow - midnight in HK.
> ...differences between amplifiers, which according to every legitimately scientific test, simply don't exist.>
...for those who can't hear the differences.
They exist in the measurements, too.
Well, you are completely WRONG! Big SURPRISE! Like all my blind wine tastings, my blind listening tests ARE double blind. The people who do the grunt work don't vote in the wine or audio blind testings.
I know the vinyl is superior in most cases. But I will be damned if you can fool me into not knowing which format I am listening to. Your friends must be half deaf, very gullible, or both.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
I recently went to two blind listening events where 90%+ of the listeners preferred MP3 files over high res digital!!! I've gone to many blind wine tastings where a winemaker could not identify his wines. Double blind testing is THE scientific gold standard.
Double blind testing is THE scientific gold standard.
You cannot possibly be using DBTs for your vinyl vs. CD test unless you have converted both of them to files where random switching would truly blind the source to both the proctor and the participant.
I have used my college professor and dean wife (quite familiar with proctoring) to conduct single blind audio tests on me. We even entered and left the room from different doors where there was never a case that both of us were in the listening room at the same time to avoid possible cueing.
We have done it both ways. BTW, my analogue is so superior that most listeners just laugh as the digital sucks so bad. Yes, high res digital CAN duplicate 95%+ of my vinyl records, and those digital copies CAN be compared to CDs of the same performance. They were doing this in the Gallo room at the 2011 CAS. I WAS shocked at how realistic the digital copies of analogue records were. Progress is a wonderful thing, and faith has NOTHING to do with it.
Tell us your DBT protocol.
This should be interesting.
"You cannot possibly be using DBTs for your vinyl vs. CD test unless you have converted both of them to files where random switching would truly blind the source to both the proctor and the participant."
Not so. At least not with a test where the listen gets to hear each section only once. You might have missed my earlier post.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
he "mixed in" other noise tracks during his tests?
I refer to what most likely happened, not a theoretical approach requiring additional gear.
He still claims he's conducted DBTs so I asked for his protocol. This should be interesting. :)
everyone else was ...
> > But I will be damned if you can fool me into not knowing which format I am listening to. < <
Although this is not the norm with my digital vs Turntable comparisons, in which differences are readily and obviously apparent, I do have some LPs(*) which sound virtually identical to the CD(*). Identical to the point in which I could not reliably tell them apart on a consistent basis (I've done this test on others ... they all acknowledged that they resorted to guessing).
tb1
(*) it should be noted that these album(s) were originally digitally recorded.
... what are you doing about those?
That usually sounds NOTHING like the silence between tracks on a CD.
One could blind the test by mixing in (analog style) another track that consisted of nothing but silent grooves with their rumble and ticks and pops. This would not make it immediately obvious which was being played. It would take an actual difference in the music to tell.
When I transfer analog tapes to digital I do not mute the space between the tracks. I carry over the analog noise from the cassette. The effect is to make the noise less noticeable. If CDs are made with "digital black" in between their tracks it is a sign of poor mastering. The CD would have a better presentation if it tried to preserve as much of the residual analog noise (electronic as well as room tone) throughout the entire recording. (Comment applies only to CD albums that are produced as an artistic whole. It does not apply to CDs that are compilations of separate singles.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Ha!
Awesome....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Most modern recordings are digital.
Musicians don't sit in a room with each other nor do they need to even complete their individual parts. This can be left to the producer to splice together for the final "performance".
It's not only signal manipulation that ruins modern recordings.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
If the musicians are recorded separately the natural interplay between the musicians will be lost. There is no hope that the recording will be realistic to a listener who has musical training. Of course, if the bean counters are too cheap to pay air fares, this may be necessary. Also, if performers are recorded separately it will be possible to "improve" them, e.g. take someone who can't sing in tune and fix this with Autotune. The result is not what I would call music and I could care less how this garbage gets excreted as sound waves. (I don't say "reproduced" because nothing is being reproduced.)
There will be analog noise regardless of the production technique unless it has been deliberately gated or filtered out. The noise starts with air molecules around the microphone. It continues with the microphone and microphone preamplifier through the analog to digital converter. This noise will dominate a 24 bit digital recording and will dominate even a 16 bit digital recording unless the microphones are right on top of the musicians, a situation that may ruin the recording for other reasons.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
c
> > ... what are you doing about those? < <
I can compare a few ways; direct turntable vs CDP, I switch between both after the LP starts up (won't matter if they're not cued just perfectly). Or I record the LP to digital (LP-CDR) and do the comparison one at a time - in which case I make certain that the leading groove info is absent from the CDR (via gain management on my recorder).
Either way, the results are identical (as noted earlier, only with selected albums).
tb1
Also, it's not clear what exactly you're comparing.
If your vinyl source is of a pretty good quality, and it's being compared to mid-fi CD player - that's the most likely reason for preference right there.
I've used CD players that cost more than my whole system (brought by a friend in the test). The vinyl used had none of the ticks and pops that can affect vinyl records. I have noticed that many systems either have a mid-bass suckout or a 1,000 hz presence peak. My system has neither of those flaws. Without those flaws, given a vinyl record in great condition, it's NOT clear to most which is analogue and which is digital. What IS CLEAR is that 80% + of those in the tests favored the analogue sound (including the owner of the expensive CD player). MF has participated in dozens of these tests, with an identical result.
.
Shorts the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
You trying to tell me that in a blind comparison of LP v. CD that your LPs are so perfect that giveaway artifacts, e.g. the odd click or pop, are entirely absent?
Believing such a thing would be a true article of faith!
LOL
Shorts the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
(nt)
Bjh brought up a legitimate point about JA and you continue to defend the man that signs your checks. Perhaps, to avoid making yourself look even more foolish, you should let this go. It will be nice when all you "old schoolers" go the way of the dinosaurs.
Nothing. I just think it's funny when babies parallel getting old with extinction. I suppose, facing one's own mortality openly is unacceptable. At what age, senility? Take your time.
The term "old schoolers" has less to do with age and more to do with attitude and a lack of willingness to mature beyond a level that was established 10 to 20 years ago.
That is a very weak case for age discrimination.
"...a lack of willingness to mature..."
Really? C'mon, man.
I think that "evolve" would been a better word than mature. Age discrimination is hardly the case as I am 51. But I have spent enough time trying to explain (not justify) my opinion to you and so am done with this exchange.
Be that way.
It's certainly NOT an article of faith. It's subject to test, like ALL of science. It's an epistemological question: is our "knowledge" based on blind faith or on existential experience? Scientists observe, make theories, and then, test those theories in experiments. Religions rarely make predictions that can be tested. When they do (like predicting the end of the world), they are often proven incorrect. Do the believers change their religion? Rarely, as, for them, it's a question of faith. Consider those people who, as a matter of faith, believe that the world is less than 7,000 years old. No matter of hard evidence can get them to change their mind.
"Scientists observe, make theories, and then, test those theories in experiments."
Quite right. But its instructive to note that no scientific theory can be *proven*--only disproven. Therefore, all scientific knowledge is *provisional*. Nor are scientific laws verifiable.
In one of lifes delicious ironies, it was the rabid atheist, David Hume, who first demonstrated the limits of science. Unfortunately, many who worship at the church of science are ignorant of Hume and succumb to the pretensions of science and scientific overreach.
So, why are scientific laws unverifiable? Humes answer was that no finite number of observations, no matter how large, can be used to derive an (unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible).
Herewith a few examples, courtesy Dinesh DSouza, that help to explain Humes position: You might insist that all swans are white. To prove this you might make a million confirmations of that fact or ten million. So what? Humes point is that you dont really *know* this. Tomorrow you might see a black swan and there goes your scientific law. Nor is this a frivolous example. For centuries, before Australia was discovered, people in the West had never seen a swan that wasnt white. Western literature is chalk full of references to White as a swan.
Now, academics might counter by saying something like, "Well, thats the great thing about science, its self-correcting. Science is always open to revision. Upon discovering Australia, science learned of black swans and adjusted its knowledge base."But to say this is to miss Humes point, which is that science was not *justified* in positing such a rule (only white swans) in the first place.
We give a theory the benefit of the doubt until we find out otherwise. There is nothing wrong in all of this as long as we remember that scientific laws are not "laws of nature." They are human laws and they represent a form of best-guessing about our world. What we call laws are nothing more than perceived patterns and sequences. We assume the world works this way until future experiments put the lie to our assumptions.
Again, science cannot *prove* theories; it can only falsify them. When we have subjected a theory to expansive testing and it has not been falsified we can say of it that its *provisionally* true. This is not however because the theory has proved to be true, or even because it is likely to be true. Rather, we proceed in this way because, practically speaking, we dont have a better way to proceed.
By the way, it is no rebuttal to Hume to say, "Okay, admittedly, scientific laws are not 100 percent true, but at least they are 99.999 percent true. They may not be certain but they are very likely to be true." How would you go about verifying this statement? How would you establish, for instance, the likelihood of Newtons inverse square law? This law cannot be tested except by actually measuring the relationship between all objects in the universe. And as that is impossible, no finite number of tries can generate any conclusion as to how probable Newtons statement is. Ten million tries cannot establish 99.999 percent certainty or even 50 percent probability because there may be twenty million cases that havent been tried where Newtons law may prove inadequate.
Hume is not arguing that science doesnt work, but it doesnt follow that scientific laws are known to be true in all cases. Newton is a wonderful example of what Hume is driving at. (Newtons laws were, for nearly two centuries, regarded as *absolutely* true.) They worked incredibly well. The industrial revolution was based on Newtonian physics and Newtonian mechanics. Newtons ideas were validated millions of times each day and his theories led to unprecedented material success. No body of scientific statements has ever been subjected to so much empirical verification.
Yet Einsteins theories of relativity contradicted Newtons theories, despite their enormous quantity of empirical verification. This and other such examples led Karl Popper to conclude that no scientific law can, in a positive sense, claim to *prove* anything at all.
But cant scientific laws be derived from the logical connection between cause and effect?
No, Hume argued, because there is no logical connection between cause and effect. We may see event A and then event B, and we may assume that event A caused event B, but we cannot *know* this for sure. All we have observed is a correlation and no number of observed correlations can add up to a *necessary* connection.
Consider a simple illustration. A child drops a ball on the ground for the first time. To her surprise, it bounces. Then the childs uncle, an honors graduate of MIT, explains to his niece that dropping a round object like a ball causes it to bounce. He might explain this by employing general terms like "property" and "causation." If these are not meaningless terms, they must refer to something in experience. But now let us consider a deep question that Hume raises: what experience has the uncle had that his niece has not had? The difference, Hume notes, is that the uncle has seen a lot of balls bounce. And every time he has seen someone else do it, the result was the same. This is the basis and the *sole* basis of the uncles superior knowledge.
Hume now draws his arresting conclusion: the uncle has no experience *fundamentally* different from the childs. He has merely repeated the experiment more times. "Because I have seen this happen many times before, therefore it must happen again." But the uncle has not established a *necessary* connection, merely an expectation derived from past experience. How does he know that past experience will repeat itself every time in the future? In truth, he does not know. Hume concluded that the laws of cause and effect cannot be validated. (His conclusion has never been disproved.) Hume is not denying that nature has laws, but he is denying that we *know* what those laws are. When we posit laws, Hume suggests this is merely a grandiose way of saying, "Here is our best *guess* based on previous tries."
You might wish to consider this the next time you become overly confident about "existential" observations.
"In one of life's delicious ironies, it was the rabid atheist, David Hume, who first demonstrated the limits of science. Unfortunately, many who worship at the church of science are ignorant of Hume and succumb to the pretensions of science and scientific overreach."
But then, it was a man of faith, Kant, who in his attempt to discredit Hume's atheism demonstrated the limits of religion. So I guess we're even.
Frankly, science doesn't give a fig about this limitation. It's a cardinal advantage.
"We assume the world works this way until future experiments put the lie to our assumptions."
Theories are proposed all the time, but most of them are bad ones. They aren't accepted merely because someone has uttered them, except, maybe, by the popular press. A scientific theory must make falsifiable predictions, and these predictions have to be tested through controlled experiment or observation. If a theory doesn't make falsifiable predictions, it isn't science. If a theory that makes falsifiable predictions doesn't actually make successful predictions as demonstrated by observation and experiment, it may be a scientific theory, but it won't be an established one.
Some successful theories have been around for close to 100 years before they were widely accepted. Plate tectonics and anthropogenic global warming would be two examples.
"Yet Einstein's theories of relativity contradicted Newton's theories."
Newton's theories are a limiting case of Relativity. This was one of Einstein's conditions when formulating General Relativity. They are correct in the absence of relative motion and mass or acceleration, which is why they work so well in our slow-moving world.
"When we posit laws, Hume suggests this is merely a grandiose way of saying, 'Here is our best *guess* based on previous tries'."
Sure, but that guess can be very good indeed. And when it is good, a theory shows remarkable predictive ability. The "discovery" of the Higgs boson is the most recent example of that. It had not been seen. But everyone expected it was there, because the underlying theory has been so successful.
As Einstein put it, "God is subtle, but He is never malicious."
"But then, it was a man of faith, Kant, who in his attempt to discredit Hume's atheism demonstrated the limits of religion."
A cynic might say that by establishing the impossibility of proving God's existence Kant is merely pointing out the obvious. Be that as it may, this is a jab at reason, not religion. Religion is based on faith, not proof. Faith doesnt require proof. Religious believers didnt need Kant to prove that reason is incapable of grasping the infinitethey already knew it.
Much more interesting for philosophers and psychologists is the way in which Kant went about demonstrating reasons severe limitations (when it comes to perceiving reality). You might say that Kant neutered reason by pointing out what has been termed the Enlightenment Fallacy. So we are far from even.
Dinesh DSouza describes the Fallacy of the Enlightenment as the arrogant assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know reality itself.
Kant's argument is that we have no basis to assume that our perception of reality ever resembles reality itself. There are things in themselves -- what Kant called the noumenon-- and of them we can know (nothing). What we can know is our *experience* of those things, what Kant called the phenomenon.
You have a dog at home and you know what it is like to see, feel, smell and pet it. This is your phenomenal experience of the dog. But what is it like to *be* a dog? We humans will never know. The dog as a thing in itself is hermetically concealed from us. Thus from Kant we have the disturbing realization that human knowledge is limited not merely by how much reality there is out there, but also by the *limited* sensory apparatus of perception we bring to that reality.
Kant isnt arguing against the validity of perception or science or reason. He is simply showing their significant limits. These limits cannot be erased by the passage of time or by further investigation and experimentation. Rather, the limits on reason are intrinsic to the kind of beings that humans are, and to the kind of apparatus that we possess for perceiving reality.
"There is thus no *valid* reason whatsoever for saying that the limits of our scientific or theoretical knowledge are identical with the limits of reality," notes Frederick Copleston, in his great work on Kant.
DSouza explains this clearly and concisely:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=25681
He also provides an expanded explanation:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vVXf2PV8pyQC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=but+there+is+one+subject+on+which+the+atheist+requires+no+evidence+d'souza&source=bl&ots=GELDtj-kVy&sig=F3hh8inZNo1Vde-SV6E-J0vBHG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U9YCUJWjNsmZqAHa8pmzDA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=but%20there%20is%20one%20subject%20on%20which%20the%20atheist%20requires%20no%20evidence%20d'souza&f=false
Newton's theories are a limiting case of Relativity. This was one of Einstein's conditions when formulating General Relativity. They are correct in the absence of relative motion and mass or acceleration, which is why they work so well in our slow-moving world.
I think what youre trying to say is that Einstein's relativity theories and Newton's theories differ in their predictions only if velocities are comparable to that of light, or gravitational fields are much larger than those encountered on the Earth.
Einsteins theory demonstrates that Newton's Three Laws of Motion are only approximately correct, breaking down when velocities approach that of light and that Newton's Law of Gravitation was also only approximately correct, breaking down in the presence of very strong gravitational fields.
But this merely reinforces Humes point. To wit: because Newtonian physics worked so well in our slow-moving world, science was quick to credit it with working *everywhere*. And yet Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is fundamentally flawed at a deeper level and so science was not *justified* in proclaiming this universal application in the first place.
Thanks for posting the link and the reference to the book.
In addition to the limitations of human senses, there are limitations to human reason itself, at least for those committed materialists who believe that reason is the product of mind and that mind is the product of the matter between our ears.
Logic is the fundamental expression of reason, and Kurt Goedel has proven using only logic that logic itself can not apprehend the infinity of the ordinary numbers, let alone more complex Infinities.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Thanks for posting the link and the reference to the book."
You're welcome, Tony.
Perhaps you will enjoy this link as well. Its an article in which David Bentley Hart gives the "New Atheism" movement a good thrashing. His reduction of Christopher Hitchens criticisms of religion to flawed syllogisms is hilarious.
Snippet: On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them. Just to skim a few off the surface: He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an admirable but nebulous humanism, which is roughly on a par with saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of weaker peoples. He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen. He speaks of the traditional hostility of religion (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero). He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on).
In the end, though, all of this might be tolerated if Hitchens book exhibited some rough semblance of a rational argument. After all, there really is a great deal to despise in the history of religion, even if Hitchens gets almost all the particular details extravagantly wrong. To be perfectly honest, however, I cannot tell what Hitchens central argument is. It is not even clear what he understands religion to be. For instance, he denounces female circumcision, commendably enough, but whatpray tellhas that got to do with religion? Clitoridectomy is a widespread cultural tradition of sub-Saharan Africa, but it belongs to no particular creed. Even more oddly, he takes indignant note of the plight of young Indian brides brutalized and occasionally murdered on account of insufficient dowries. We all, no doubt, share his horror, but what the hell is his point?
"A cynic might say that by establishing the impossibility of proving God's existence Kant is merely pointing out the obvious. Be that as it may, this is a jab at reason, not religion. Religion is based on faith, not proof. Faith doesn't require proof. Religious believers didn't need Kant to prove that reason is incapable of grasping the infinitethey already knew it."
I think you're overestimating what they knew back then. His was an increasingly rational era but it was still an era in which an educated man could believe in miracles, in Adam and Eve and the flood. In which, with a few exceptions, the Bible could be taken as literal truth. Newton's clockwork neither explained neither the creation of the universe, nor of man. Christianity was still a falsifiable scientific hypothesis -- not something that could only be demonstrated by faith alone, but something that could achieve concrete and demonstrable results.
IMO, Kant's was a Pyrrhic victory at best. Science continues, its limitations notwithstanding. But there is no longer a material peg upon which to hang belief.
"I think what you're trying to say is that Einstein's relativity theories and Newton's theories differ in their predictions only if velocities are comparable to that of light, or gravitational fields are much larger than those encountered on the Earth.
"Einstein's theory demonstrates that Newton's Three Laws of Motion are only approximately correct, breaking down when velocities approach that of light and that Newton's Law of Gravitation was also only approximately correct, breaking down in the presence of very strong gravitational fields."
Actually, I'm saying much more than that. Newton's theories are quite literally a limiting case of General Relativity, the case in which objects are at rest to one another and spacetime isn't curved (no mass or acceleration). *They aren't a mere approximation,* though they can and do serve as one in our slow-moving, low mass world. This difference, between an pproximation and a special case that wasn't, initially, known to be one, is anything but insignificant. The requirement that Newton's Laws emerge from the new theory was of great importance to Einstein in formulating General Relativity, just as Kepler's Laws were of importance to Newton, Coulomb's Law was of importance to Maxwell, etc.
"Kant's argument is that we have no basis to assume that our perception of reality ever resembles reality itself. There are things in themselves -- what Kant called the 'noumenon'-- and of them we can know (nothing). What we can know is our *experience* of those things, what Kant called the 'phenomenon'."
"You have a dog at home and you know what it is like to see, feel, smell and pet it. This is your phenomenal experience of the dog. But what is it like to *be* a dog? We humans will never know. The dog as a "thing in itself" is hermetically concealed from us. Thus from Kant we have the disturbing realization that human knowledge is limited not merely by how much reality there is out there, but also by the *limited* sensory apparatus of perception we bring to that reality."
Kant's system was already known, by some, to be flawed in his own lifetime, indeed, he made an egregious error right at the start of the Critique of Pure Reason when he ignored the possibility of non-Euclidean geometry -- a mistake that Gauss, who had developed the geometry of curved surfaces, recognized.
As it happens, I do not think that there is any scientific reason to recognize a distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal worlds. They are one and the same. There is much that we cannot observe -- events outside our light cone, for example, or quantum worlds not our own -- but that doesn't break down on what are essentially Platonic lines.
If there is anything out there that is entirely metaphysical, it can't interact in any way with us, it is of no interest to science, or to any rational being. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis and there is no scientific reason to suppose that it exists: to do so would be to create an unnecessary multiplication of entities, and so violate Occam's Razor.
"But this merely reinforces Hume's point. To wit: because Newtonian physics worked so well in our 'slow-moving world,' science was quick to credit it with working *everywhere*. And yet Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is fundamentally flawed at a deeper level and so science was not *justified* in proclaiming this universal application in the first place."
Modern science never claims to be finished: all theories are provisional. That is part of its very essence. Individuals may believe that a scientific theory is universally true, but insofar as they do, they are not being philosophically rigorous. They are conflating a high probability of truth with truth. This is something that comes naturally to us, a necessity of life. When a tiger attacks, we can't hesitate to contemplate the possibility that our theory of tigers is wrong, and that they're actually cuddly and nice. Ancestors who did that were rapidly removed from the gene pool. So we tend to believe in one thing or another, even when the evidence is vague.
In any case, while Hume was correct, that limitation doesn't harm science. Which is interesting in and of itself. If the scientific method didn't, overall, get us closer to the truth, science wouldn't work. It has so far, so the scientific evidence is that we're getting closer to the truth. It is only a matter of probability, of course, but the probability that we aren't is vanishingly small.
"As it happens, I do not think that there is any scientific reason to recognize a distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal worlds. They are one and the same."
You are fee to assume that, but you can never *know* that to be the case. Moreover, your choosing to believe it does not make it factual. You believe it because it dovetails with your zeitgeist. As DSouza points out, no one has ever refuted Kants claim.
The absence of refutation elevates Kant's claim to the realm of possibility, but not the realm of probability.
You speak in terms of knowing. The truth of propositions in mathematics, to the incomplete extent that propositions made within an axiomatic system can be proved to be true or false, is knowable. Ditto for a logical system, which is merely mathematics in different clothing. But other than that, there is no reason to believe that anything can be known with certainty. To demand that it be so known is to make a straw man argument, and to use that demand to support an unfalsifiable proposition like Kant's is to engage in flying spaghetti monsterism.
Since Kant's proposition can't be tested logically, it falls, to the extent that it can be tested, within the realm of empirical science, and it is on that basis that I reject it, without ever being able to disprove it.
The most productive falsifiable theories that we have today all point in the direction of the supposed noumenal and phenomenal worlds as being one and the same. I came years ago to believe that physics and mathematics (of which logic and thought are applications) are one and the same. The fact that physics so often comes out of already discovered mathematics, e.g., non-Euclidean geometry and group theory, and that we're regularly able to find mathematical descriptions for physical phenomena, e.g., calculus, points to that. So does the fact that our thoughts and feelings increasingly are found to correspond to a physical entity operating according to physical laws, the brain. It is in a way unsurprising that we can understand some of what makes the world tick, since it would seem that we are, in effect, part of the physical universe modeling itself.
"Since Kant's proposition can't be tested logically, it falls, to the extent that it can be tested, within the realm of empirical science, and it is on that basis that I reject it, without ever being able to disprove it."
So to in order to be consistent, I take it that you would also reject String Theory? Watching an episode of NOVA on PBS the other evening there was a fascinating discussion about ST. Professor Weinberg and two other physicists noted that a theory that cannot provide a testable prediction (ST cannot) is not science; it's philosophy, and therefore we should not accept it in a scientific sense.
An astute observation. However, falsifiability doesn't require that a theory be falsifiable *with the equipment or understanding we have now.* It need only be falsifiable in principle. There's no reason to suppose that string theory won't be falsifiable once our understanding of the math improves to the point at which we can use it to make predictions about the physical world.
Another example might be the various quantum interpretations. The many-worlds and Copenhagen interpretations make identical predictions. And we can't observe other quantum worlds. There are those who say that, since they can't even in principle be observed, the distinction isn't a matter of science. I'm skeptical of that, personally. The theory that is simplest is the one favored by science, and it seems to me that the Copenhagen interpretation introduces unnecessary multiplication of entities. But it is said.
However, getting back to string theory -- I think it can be argued that a scientific theory gains credence not just on the basis of experiment or observation, though this is the ultimate arbiter. Any physicist will tell you that some theories are beautiful. They are so elegant and powerful that they almost have to be true. I have often been able to provisionally dismiss a new theory because it was inelegant.
As far as I know, philosophy of science hasn't progressed to the point at which it can explain or appreciate this phenomenon (although this may be more a reflection of my ignorance of the philosophy of science than anything else). I believe that Kant was, as so often, ahead of the curve when he said in the Critique of Practical Judgment, "That which is beautiful is that which has subjective purposiveness for cognition." I believe that we've evolved a nose for truth, and the most capable theorists use this more than many, who think that science is a dry matter of experiment, explanation, and experiment, believe.
It's also true that some successful theories are implicit in what is already known, e.g., Maxwell's equations can be derived from Special Relativity and Coulomb's Law, and Einstein himself famously (and mind-bogglingly) hit upon SR after performing a thought experiment in which he visualized himself riding a wave of light.
Sylvester James Gates, Jr. is a leading proponent of String Theory and of course knows *much* more about the subject than you or I. He wants ST to become a credible theory in the worst way. You might say he has a vested interest in seeing it succeed. And yet Im struck by the candor, honesty and modesty he brings to the debate. Would that more scientists were this comfortable and intellectually honest when discussing their pet theories.
Gates: The well-known physicist and Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow once supposedly described string theory as the theory of everything that predicts nothing. At the end of the day, if string theory does not provide us with a testable predictionwhether it be in the context of elementary particle physics or cosmology and black hole physicsthen nobody should believe it.
Gates: String theory is often criticized as having had no experimental input or output, so the analogy to a religion has been noted by a number of people. In a sense that's right; it is kind of a church to which I belong. We have our own popes and House of Cardinals. But ultimately science is also an act of faithfaith that we will be capable of understanding the way the universe is put together.
NOVA: But what are the reasons for believing that string theory is correct?
Gates: The power of science is an acceptance and openness to the notion that we are fallible and must therefore be corrected by nature herself. Many other human belief systems start off with the assumption that the answer is already known. In science, it's precisely the opposite; we start out admitting to not knowing the answer. So as we struggle with our marriages of space and time, our addition of extra dimensions, our paradigm shifts from little billiard balls to little pieces of spaghetti, these exercises are all subjected to a single question: Is it there in the laboratory? Can you find its evidence? Until that happens, I am of the opinion that you should be skeptical about string theory.
Going for a walk and then dinner.
And yet, I think his frustration is quite common among physicists who are working on string theory. Physics is an empirical science, and theories rise and fall on experiment.
A theory, however elegant, must be falsifiable to be considered science. String theory is undoubtedly that, but until experiments can be proposed and conducted its position will be a tenuous one. Not, however, a completely tenuous one, since it a) is an outgrowth of current, very successful falsifiable theories and b) has been handed to us by mathematics -- a gift of God, so to speak.
I do think he's wrong about faith. IMO, the best science can do is treat its own results scientifically, that is, as provisional. So far, it has been remarkably successful. That's a matter of observation, with the utility of the scientific method itself the falsifiable hypothesis. But it could all stop working tomorrow. Boulders could float away. Water could burst into flame. Science can't say that won't happen, but, since it hasn't, the hypothesis that it will is provisionally judged a failed one.
My point here (yeah, I know, I know, I'm getting to it) is that the acceptance of fallibility extends to all scientific results, and is IMO one of the main advantages that science has over other ways of looking at phenomena, such as philosophical system building or religious belief. Both trap themselves by assuming that our knowledge is complete when it isn't.
"Water could burst into flame."
Well I read the following headline yesterday in the Register-Guard:
"Women burned after igniting oxygen".
And I didn't think that was possible either, maybe the hold of science is starting to slip...
Rick
LOL, either that, or the scientific knowledge of headline writers . . .
I agree with almost all of this. BTW, Hume was certainly NOT a big fan of religion which is based on faith, not on experience. Of course, all scientific theories are tentative and provisional. Future tests or future experience may well lead a scientist to change his view. Religious faith is not based on experience, but on faith in an unchanging truth. People of "faith" look upon their unchanging belief in the correctness of received religious wisdom as a virtue. Of course, it's a huge vice from the standpoint of the scientific mind!
AgreeI am not sure of Regmac's point here. Faith is certainly no counter to science nor does Hume's point defend believing in nonsense (which is all religious faith).
Religious faith ultimately becomes the giant teapot in the sky. You may believe int he giant teapot or spaghetti monster and you may get 1 million other people to ALSO believe in the spaghetti monster/teapot and you may wear nice robes and worship the teapot on Sunday and you may read books on teapots and spaghetti monsters and science may not be able to disprove that there is a teapot or spaghetti monster but we can say measure the mass of one object and another and "gravity" and be assured that a ball with a given internal quantity of air at a given velocity will strike another given piece of mass and be able to repeat the "bounce height" associated with that velocity and weight and predict within a small margin of error that that ball will always bounce with that height always.
Observational science in Regmac's example of doves is poor because it is not based on "numbers" the same way physics is.
Some scientific fields are "better or stronger" than other scientific fields. Physics is a cut above everything else - Chemistry and bology are there. Science that relies on statistics like "I saw 5000 white doves and everyone in the village I live in has only seen white does means that there are only white doves in the entire world is a MAJOR step down because it relies on the observation of few people in one area of the world. To me that is NOT science - that is observation.
Observational based science is a different animal. You could say the same with the bouncing ball - I always see a ball bounce therefore a ball will always bounce. That holds true for the whole village of people. One day they see a guy throw a ball in the lake - and it doesn't bound. They go back to the drawing board. But that is not what physicists do. They measure it mathematically and Know why it bounces one way on cement another way on water, in a vacuum, on the moon, etc. The math is absolute anywhere in the universe all the time no matter what.
Hume is playing an old philosopher's game. You park a car in the parking lot to go to your office. You have done so for 10 strait years. When you leave your work the car is always there.
Someone asks you where is you car? You say - it's in parking sport B where I left it this morning. You have no reason to think otherwise for that is where you left it the 3000 other times in a row. But on that particular day your car was stolen. oops.
This in no way invalidates science in any way shape or form. There is a "reasonable" expectation that the car would be there based on all information available. Real scientists and philosophers however are OPEN to the possibility that the car would not be there - they would say "that based on all previous information there is a very high likely hood that your car would be in the lot BUT there is a chance that your car could be stolen based on the number of car thefts in the city and the type of car you own that there is say a 1/148,873 chance that your car could be stolen when you leave your office. They may also be able to calculate the chance of your car not starting, being hit by lightning etc.
With God - science is even open to the possibility that there is what we could describe as a God. Atheists, and I can speaker for most of us, are open to the possibility of their being a God/Alien even if we believe in Evolution. The mathematical odds are staggeringly low but I suppose it's possible through evolution in the furthest reaches of the universe that a creature evolved at a rate of speed millions of times faster than us.
If that creature evolved faster and longer then they could be far far higher up the evolutionary tree than we are. That entity could be so advanced that it could create a life form in a Petri dish and shipped it out to planet earth and poof here we are. There this satisfies evolution and satisfies there being a possible God. But that's all it is - a nice concoction by me as a mental exercise to support God (ahem Ridley Scott did it in Prometheus and Star Trek TNG had a two-parter explaining life in the universe.
Good science is what you basket you should put your eggs into - some of the observational stat based "ahem" science is far weaker and and I'd keep a few eggs back just in case.
No eggs should be place in religion. Largely because religion won't accept ONE egg as a "better put one in just in case" - no you have to put ALL your eggs into it or you go to eternal damnation - you are not allowed to even THINK of the POSSIBILITY that there is not God. If you think it for just ONE second the holy ghost will know and it is 100% unforgivable offense. Jeez.This is why even Richard Dakwins says he is a 6.9 out of 7 on the Atheist scale. He believes there is a "chance" - and he believes that because he can't prove otherwise.
Personally speaking - any God that could be so sophisticated to create "everything" would have to be a lot more sophisticated than the CARTOON that is the God of religious textbooks. Something that sophisticated could not be the utter nasty mean genocidal cruel bafoon depicted in religious books.
Edits: 07/11/12
Hi RGA:
"Observational science in Regmac's example of doves is poor because it is not based on "numbers" the same way physics is."
Swans, not doves. And as I pointed out it's Mr. D'Souza's example.
"The math is absolute anywhere in the universe all the time no matter what."
Perhaps you will find this link interesting. Snippet: "In conclusion, a set of over-arching mathematical laws cannot exist as there are areas which cannot be explained. Just because a study is a science does not mean it will have laws, and laws that are present can change. The laws of mathematics are changeable, and the resolution is CONfirmed (negated)." (TFIC)
D'Souza's example is not what science is - therefore it is knocked down as a strawman argument. Observation is a PART of science - but it is not science itself. D'Souza clearly doesn't get the difference.
He has problems with statistical prediction - and that's fine because there is a problem with that to a degree - I agree.
Although to defend stats - There are many things in life that we can "practically" use to make our life easier and that have been proven to "work" - it would be idiotic in some cases not to trust in the stats.
For instance the odds of winning the Lotto is very low - it is not a good idea to rely on the lottery for your retirement plan. Yes the odd guy who does rely on it has won but statistically speaking the odds are not in your favor so don't do it.
Yes some fields of mathematics and physics could change - not all of math however. Most of it is ironclad. 2+2 is never going to equal 3,756 because someone eventually confirms or dumps string theory
"D'Souza's example is not what science is - therefore it is knocked down as a strawman argument. Observation is a PART of science - but it is not science itself. D'Souza clearly doesn't get the difference."
DSouza is laying out the skeptical case here not because he wants to endorse without reservations Humes (or Poppers) philosophy. Rather, his goal is to overthrow Humes argument against miracles using Humes own empirical and skeptical philosophy.
DSouza makes the case that miracles are possible by obliterating the strongest argument against them. (In doing so it should be pointed out that DSouza is not defending the veracity of a particular miracle.) Rather, hes simply stating that miracles should not be dismissed in advance as unscientific or incredible. Like all Christians he concede that miracles are improbable -- that's why we use the term *miracle* -- but improbable events can and do happen, and the same is true of miracles.
The strongest argument against miracles was advanced by Hume in his book "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." Humes argument is widely cited by atheists; Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both invoke it to justify their wholesale rejection of miracles. Hume argued that:
1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
2. We know these laws through repeated and constant experience.
3. The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws.
4. Consequently, no one can rationally believe in miracles.
Humes case against miracles has been enormously influential, but it can be effectively answered. To answer it, we must turn to the work of Hume himself. Ironically, his writings show why human knowledge is so limited and unreliable that we can never completely dismiss the possibility of miracles. In formulating his objection to miracles, poor Hume seems to have forgotten to read his own book. DSouzas refutation demonstrates that:
1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
2. Scientific laws are on Humes own account empirically unverifiable.
3. Thus, violations of the known laws of nature are quite possible.
4. Therefore, miracles are possible.
To see Humes influence, we must turn to his modern-day followers, who typically call themselves logical positivists. Atheists and "brights" don't use this term, but if you examine their presuppositions you will see that they are based on logical positivism. A logical positivist thinks that science operates in the verifiable domain of laws and facts, while morality operates in the subjective and unverifiable domain of choices and values. The logical positivist is confident that scientific knowledge is the best kind of knowledge, and whatever contradicts the claims of science must be rejected as irrational. These people are all around us today. Many of them are extremely well educated and speak with an air of certitude, so even people who do not agree with what they say have a hard time answering them.
For the logical positivist, there are two kinds of statements: analytic statements and synthetic statements. An analytic statement is one whose truth or falsity can be established by examining the statement itself. If I say, "My neighbor is a bachelor with a beautiful young wife"; you know right away that I am not telling the truth. For Hume, mathematics provides a classic example of analytic truths. Mathematical axioms are true by definition; they are, one may say, inherently true.
A synthetic statement can be verified only by checking the facts. If I say, "My neighbor weighs three hundred pounds and enjoys reading books by Richard Dawkins," you cannot tell from the statement itself whether it is true. You have to visit my neighbors house and ask him.
Hume argued that analytic statements are true a priori, i.e., by definition. Synthetic statements, on the other hand, are true a posteriori, i.e., by considering the evidence. For Hume, the physical sciences provide the standard model of synthetic truths. Through the scientific method-hypothesis, experimentation, verification, and criticism we can discover synthetic truths about the world.
On this basis Hume delivered his famous dismissal of metaphysics, which he did not consider any kind of truth at all. Consider the central religious claims that "there is life after death" or "God made the universe. Humes point is that these statements are neither true by definition, nor can they be verified by checking the facts. Consequently, he argued, these statements are not even untrue--they are meaningless. Hume wrote, "If we take in our hand any volume-of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance-let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quality or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact or experience? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
This is sometimes known as Humes principle of empirical verifiability. It allows only two kinds of truths: those that are true by definition and those that are true by empirical confirmation. Right away, however, we see a problem. Let us apply Humes criteria to Humes own doctrine: Is the principle of verifiability true by definition? No. Well, is there a way to confirm it empirically? Again, no. Consequently, taking Humes advice, we should commit his principle to the flames because it is not merely false, it is also incoherent.
There is another problem with Humes reasoning, less obvious but equally serious. It took the genius of Immanuel Kant to point out an error that had completely escaped Humes attention. Contrary to Hume's assertions, mathematical truths are not analytic. Consider the mathematical proposition in Euclidean geometry that "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.This seems self-evidently true, and yet it cannot be confirmed simply by examining the sentence. There is nothing in the definition of the terms that makes it true, So how do we know it is true? We have to check. It is only when we make two points on a piece of paper and then draw a line through them that we can observe that the shortest distance between them is a straight line. Kant demonstrated that many other mathematical propositions are of this sort.
DSouza draws Kants correction of Hume to our attention not to suggest that these mathematical axioms are wrong, but merely to show that their veracity can be established only *synthetically.* We can proceed only by looking at the data. So mathematical laws are, in general, like scientific laws. We can verify them only by examining the world around us. When we observe the world around us, however, we make a disconcerting discovery first noted by Hume himself.
Scientific laws are *not* verifiable. They cannot be empirically validated. Science is based on the law of cause and effect and that law cannot be validated in experience either. DSouza notes that Humes argument was a bombshell. So far-reaching were its implications that very few people grasped them, and to this day Humes ghost continues to haunt the corridors of modern science. DSouza says it is quite amusing to see brights and other highly educated types continue to make claims about science that were exploded two centuries ago by Hume.
So, why are scientific laws unverifiable? Again, Humes answer was that no finite number of observations, no matter how large, can be used to derive an unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible. {Swan example and bouncing balls}
We give a theory the benefit of the doubt until we find out otherwise. There is nothing wrong in all of this as long as we remember that scientific laws are not laws of nature.They are *human* laws and they represent a form of best-guessing about our world. What we call laws are nothing more than perceived patterns and sequences. We assume the world works this way until future experiments put the lie to our assumptions.
(Again, DSouza is laying out the skeptical case here not because he wants to endorse without reservations Humes (or Poppers) philosophy. Rather, his goal is to overthrow Humes argument against miracles using Humes own empirical and skeptical philosophy.)
Hume insists that miracles violate the known laws of nature, but Humes own skeptical philosophy has shown that there are no known laws of nature. Miracles can be dismissed only if scientific laws are *necessarily* true--if they admit of no exceptions. But Hume has demonstrated that for no empirical proposition whatsoever do we know this to be the case. Miracles can be deemed unscientific only if our knowledge of causation is so extensive that we can confidently dismiss divine causation, and therefore we cannot dismiss the possibility of divine causation in exceptional cases.
When we speak of miracles we could mean either an extremely rare event that is nevertheless scientifically possible, or we could mean an event that contravenes the established laws of nature. Consider the question of whether the dead can come back to life. We may consider this unlikely in the extreme because no one we know has seen it happen. All medical attempts to revive the dead (DSouza is referring to someone who has been dead for quite some time) have failed so far. But it does not follow that for a dead person to return to life is a violation of the laws of nature. Can anyone say with certainty that in the future medical advances will not reach a point at which clinically dead people can be restored to life? Of course not. So the scientific proposition that dead people cannot come back to life is a *practical* truth -- useful for everyday purposes -- but it is not a *necessary* truth.
But if we might see dead people return to life in the future, then it is possible that dead people have, on one or more occasions, been restored to life in the past. DSouza is not making the claim that this has happened. He is merely suggesting that if it might happen one day, then it could have happened before. (Logical possibility cannot be confined to future events.) If it happened in the past, it would be a miracle. If it happens in the future, well call it scientific progress. Either way, its possible, not because natures laws are necessarily overthrown, but because we have no *complete* knowledge of what those laws are.
Miracles can also be viewed as actual suspensions of the laws of nature, and here too there is nothing in science or logic that says that these things cannot happen. Who says that these laws are immutable? Where is the *evidence* for such a sweeping conclusion? Obviously, if God exists, miracles are possible. For God there are clearly no constraints outside the natural realm. Even modern physics concedes that beyond the natural world the laws of nature do not apply. There is nothing miraculous about heaven or hell for the simple reason that there are no laws of nature that operate outside our universe.
But even within nature, God cannot be restricted. Like the author of a novel, God is in complete control of the plot. How can He be bound by rules and storylines that He devised? If God abruptly interrupts the logic of events there will most assuredly be much disruption and confusion. So what? Isnt that the point of miracles, to disrupt the normal chain of events by drawing our attention to something outside the narrative? If God made the universe He also made the laws of nature and He can alter them, on occasion, if He chooses.
All of this is an attempt to justify a God and to discredit science. It's garbage wrapped up in a nice mental exercise only if one makes a concession to "Again, Hume's answer was that no finite number of observations, no matter how large, can be used to derive an unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible."
It is not logically indefensible. You can't say that I reject the above and that means God is real.
You still can't prove that there is a God - or that "miracles" are in fact miracles or aren't flukes or can't be explained in other ways.
I am not up on philosophy having only taken 3 courses in it - but I was dating my philosophy professor who is also published. None of them believe in God (at least not the bible Gods) - the notion is laughable.
Your example of the dead returning to life - that has happened numerous times where someone has been deemed "dead" by medical doctors and then got up. It's no miracle - it's misdiagnosis - and or in some cases the person was very cold and and they could not read a pulse.
You can't argue the idiotic notion that because the Bible says God can create miracles - if I see a miracle - then God exists. No! Miracles could happen with no God. And since EVERY religion has a God that creates miracles how do you KNOW it's YOUR God that created the miracle and not the other guy's God.
First - The entire logic of the Christian or Muslim God being perfect and in total control of everything is an entirely separate issue to whatever perceptual or real holes science has.
God is perfect. Therefore everything a perfect entity creates must also be perfect. God must therefore create himself. Man is God, a Cat is God, a stone is God, the Devil is God, Windows operating systems is God - all must be perfect. Fail.
God is there - he operates outside of all scientific laws - fine - prove it.
Throwing up a bunch of Hume and D'souza isn't evidence.
If one knows that God exists it is not a question of belief or proof.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
v
Kindly explain to us how seeing the sun rise myriads of times gives any logical reason at all for supposing it will rise tomorrow? Isn't the belief it will simply a result of a custom or habit of our minds?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
It's not just that the sun always rises, it's also all the scientific knowledge that explains WHY the sun always rises. And, yes, the sun MIGHT NOT rise some day. All of science is subject to change. Religious dogma, based on faith, is NOT subject to change.
People like Thomas Kuhn have shown that science proceeds pretty much the same way that religion operates. With few exceptions scientists do not change their views. They retire or die and are replaced by a newer generation of scientists. How is this any different than religion?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"People like Thomas Kuhn have shown that science proceeds pretty much the same way that religion operates. With few exceptions scientists do not change their views. They retire or die and are replaced by a newer generation of scientists. How is this any different than religion?"
If science proceeded the same way religion does, cars wouldn't move, or prayer would work. Since neither is the case, I think we can assume that there's a difference between them. It is certainly a difference that Kuhn himself recognized.
Even if it were true that all old fart scientists held on to outmoded theories while all young scientists jumped on the new and improved ones as they came along, it would have little bearing on science, which is so constructed as to transcend human nature. It's amazing what experiment and observation can do to separate the wheat from the chaff. Two bishops can argue until doomsday about how many angels can fit on the head a pin: two scientists can argue about it only until one of them trots out a microscope and tries putting angels on it.
The idiotic Governor of Texas actually prayed that God would end a recent drought!!! Yes, with NO result!!!
Two results.
If the drought ended - he would get votes from the religious nutters for the fact that he has the ear of God.
If it doesn't work - then he can say "I Prayed" but the answer was "No"
When you play this religion "prayer" card you can't lose. Which is why so VERY MANY religious leaders can afford top of the line stereo equipment while I have to save. They're all getting very wealthy "Selling God"
I've been tempted to start my own religion. I can come up with something better than Scientology and it's easier to make money than doing any real work.
Zimmerman, who is being tried for murder, just said in an interview that his action was "God's will". This is the kind of idiotic thinking that has led, unfortunately, to countless horrors.
That's the problem with the bible and books like it. You can read it literally - if you do you better stone gay people to death and women are less important than the family cow.
You can read it as a fable or a mythical book - but if you read it that way then you just admitted that it's a fable and a MYTH!
So you have these guys making money standing at the front saying this bit is REAL and this bit is Fable - huh? And that changes depending which decade it was read in. But you should trust the priest because "God talks to him" but no one ever sees that or can prove that that conversation happened.
A lot of dead Iraqis because Bush was told by God in a dream to bomb children - Guess God was oops wrong. Or Bush heard it wrong. No he either hears things and should be locked in a mental institution or he lied to the American people to get the votes to make a profit. Haliburton ammo sales increased and made them all richer. Who cares about some kids getting bombed and young black Americans lost their legs - Bush got his leather seats in his car and some zeroes in his bank account.
"good people do good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Mind boggling.
Why don't people notice that it doesn't work?
How do you know that prayer doesn't work? Did you ever consider that it might have to be used appropriately before it could be expected to work?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
If we accept mere possibility as our criterion of acceptance, then we end up accepting an infinite number of things, inasmuch as everything is possible. So as with any other theory, I'd have to see some positive evidence of the efficacy of prayer before I'd accept it. But I haven't seen any. The relatives of atheists and believers leave the hospital in equal numbers. A pope, who is undoubtedly the recipient of many prayers, may live a month in office, the dictator of an atheistic Communist state 50 years.
Somebody actually did a controlled study of the efficacy of prayer not long ago. Not surprisingly, they found none.
"Somebody actually did a controlled study of the efficacy of prayer not long ago. Not surprisingly, they found none."
Hector Avalos notes that the problem with this and any so-called controlled experiment regarding prayer is that there can be no such thing as a controlled experiment concerning prayer. You can never divide people into groups that received prayer and those that did not. The main reason is that there is no way to know that someone did not receive prayer. How would anyone know that some distant relative was not praying for a member of the group that has been identified as having received no prayer? How does one control for prayers said on behalf of all the sick people in the world? How does one assess the degree of faith in patients that are too sick to be interviewed or in the persons performing the prayers? Its nave to assume that "pure groups" were attained in the study you cite or any other. Since control groups are not possible, such purported "scientific" experiments are not possible regardless of the outcome.
Well, yeah, there could be a monk in Tibet who is praying for the entire world. Good thing for us that monk doesn't die, because without his prayers the world will end.
It seems to me that Mr. Avalos is trying much too hard. If he wants to show that prayer is efficacious, he'll have to conduct a controlled experiment that shows that it is, because merely pointing to shortcomings in an experiment is not, in science, sufficient to credit a theory.
It seems to me that Mr. Avalos is trying much too hard. If he wants to show that prayer is efficacious, he'll have to conduct a controlled experiment that shows that it is, because merely pointing to shortcomings in an experiment is not, in science, sufficient to credit a theory.
You have misunderstood. Mr. Avalos is taking the *skeptical* side of the debate as to the healing power of prayer. Nevertheless, his criticism that any such study can never control for which group gets prayer and therefore renders said study flawed (a priori), strikes me as sound.
Audiophiles can't even agree on a valid methodology for blind testing gear, and you expect believers and unbelievers to reach agreeable terms for a controlled test -- or for a third party to provide a solution -- as to the efficacy (or not) of prayer?! I've got a bridge to Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. ~:)
First there is only one god according to each religion.
A Christian prays and will get some things and not get them - but so too will a Muslim.
Muslims are convinced 100% that they are 100% right and they're God grants them their wishes through prayer. Indeed, so convinced are they that they pray many times a day.
Christians believe the same - and the other 100+ religions believe the same.
Put yourself in the non-believers shoes and looking at all of these religions for the first time and you read the EXACT same stories.
My friend was nearing death and the doctors said he was done for - then we prayed to God and a week later he was cured - WOW - that means our God heard the prayer and saved him. Blah blah blah - every religion has these exact same stories. So that either means all the Gods are up there or that their body happened to be misdiagnosed by the doctor and wasn't as severe as thought, or was something entirely different with the same symptoms.
Then there is the old "I was dieing and I saw a white light" routine which has been proven biologically to be an oxygen based lacking in the brain at the optic nerve that creates that light - it's a shared experience because it is biological/medically proven. Further the lack of oxygen to the brain creates hallucinations.
Prayer is a matter of placaebo. In many instances belief can overcome. For instance doctors have used sugar pills and told patients that they were powerful drugs that would take pain away. The belief in the doctor and the belief in the pills made their pain go away - no for everyone but it was illustration that "belief" in something could actually reduce pain.
I don't see why belief in prayer could not do exactly the same thing. So in fact I can see that "belief" in prayer could be beneficial for certain people.
I prayed to God to not make me an Atheist. For some reason He said no.
But then, all studies are flawed. Who's to say that a freak wind or an unknown phenomenon didn't influence Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa?
Fortunately, as Einstein said, God is subtle, but He is never malicious. When we have adhered to scientific method, it has so far led us in the right direction, overall. This despite many famous scientific errors, and even the occasional malicious hoax like Piltsdown Man.
I don't think most believers have a genuine desire for objective testing, whether it be of the efficacy of prayer, or of audio. This is true of both sides, in the case of audio: the guys at Hydrogen Audio seem to me as biased as the most hard-core subjectivist. But I don't get the sense that the same thing is true in the case of religion. Believers want to believe, and so they do. All you have to do is look at the fact that religious beliefs differ widely from place to place to see that they're mostly fiction, accepted as truth. Unlike many atheists, I don't actually believe that religion is without benefit, or truth. It's just that religious truths are moral truths (as understood by a given society) that are represented symbolically, in the language of the subconcious, rather than literal ones. Religion is a tool for the social control of behavior, and it has been a crucially important and successful one.
"Religious dogma, based on faith, is NOT subject to change."
Now that is an illusion. Who is your authority for that assertion?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
just listen to the tea party fools who claim that the bible (really, just the JEWISH old testament) is 100% accurate and it's truths are unchanging. WHERE have you been living for the last 30 + years?
Well, I have a passing interest in the history of religions, and certainly do not take fundamentalism as the paradigm for religion.
But of course, fundamentalism is a relatively new phenomenon--in Christianity, anyway.
But let's face it, all religions have histories, and have changed over time.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The Catholic church, like all fundamentalist religions that I know of, claims that it is infallible in many crucial beliefs and rituals. IMO, there is no more reason to believe in any religion as there is a reason to believe in the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster. And, NO, an atheist's view that there is no god, is NOT based on faith. Like all beliefs, it's based on experience, and is subject to change given new experience. As Bill Maher, an atheist, puts it: I don't believe in Jesus Christ, but if he came down and started performing miracles, then I would say: "look, there is Jesus, and he is performing miracles. WOW! I was clearly wrong, and I now believe." If religions did not try to impose their "infallible" views on the rest of us, I would not care what nonsense they believed in. Unfortunately, the history of man is filled with many disasters that religions have caused.
Religions are dragged forward by secular society. Take gay rights which is occurring now. Religions basically are being PUSHED to do the right thing as they were pushed to give women the vote and African Americans equality. They are pushed by non religious (largely Atheists or those who consider themselves non-religious) to follow a more tolerant path.
I just met an Anglican priest on the ferry the other day - not only was she a she but she is a Lesbian and not just a Lesbian but a married Lesbian.
So the Anglican church seems to have re-evaluated some things. Then again why not - it's about money collecting so if you open up to the gays that's a whopping 5-10% of the world population you can market your church to.
Guys like Dawkins couldn't care less what people believe in. The problem he had and others is when people are killing people in the name of their God when there is no evidence. The thinking is that if you stop their "wrong" and "un-proven" belief system then maybe they won't fly plane's into building in the hope that they will get 72 virgins for doing so.
If those guys were not so totally convinced by getting 72 virgins and being in God's good books and they were taught to believe in stuff that could be proved then those towers would still be there and the religious nutter retaliation that followed would not have followed and the entire war would not have started and tens of thousands of people would be alive and arguably the financial state of the US and the rest of the world would be FAR better and people would still have their homes.
All because people are believing in something that has absolute no basis to be believed in any way shape or form - not remotely.
It's like the cable debate but people argue to the death that spending $2,000 on a cable is stupid when evidence illustrates it sounds no different than $5 cables - but so what - the worst that someone spending the $2k cables on will do to the world is umm "help the economy."
Believing you get 72 virgins in death or that God has a plan for you (so if you kill 50 people - it's not my fault it was God's plan for me to kill 50 people) is just slightly more important than the guy who spent $2k on cables (and at least he is happy in his belief and hasn't killed anyone).
Ultimately the problem with all religions is that they demand supreme acceptance of their "truth" and then discount everyone else's religion as being WRONG.
So one guy with zero proof will rip the other guy with zero proof. And no on this forum they're trying to rip science which is the only thing that actually has any evidence whatsoever.
As a non believer I am asked to not believe Scientology because it's Craaaazy - I am asked not to believe in Mormonism because it's Caraaazy
But I am asked to believe in Christianity because it's
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
Yes that's not caraaaazy? I am supposed to throw all science under the bus and believe the above? Yeah ok.
Infallibility implies a certain unchangeability in doctrine, and in many cases, this has been very difficult to prove historically.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"Kindly explain to us how seeing the sun rise myriads of times gives any logical reason at all for supposing it will rise tomorrow?"
It doesn't. (That's Hume's point.) One more time: Humes position is that no finite number of observations, no matter how large, can be used to derive an (unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible).
"Isn't the belief it will simply a result of a custom or habit of our minds?"
Precisely. Just as I highlighted with the example of the little girl and her uncle observing a ball bounce. Actually, Hume's famous example involves billiard balls.
How could an infinite number of observations of the sun rising prove that it would rise tomorrow? How "can [they] be used to derive an (unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible)?"
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Many think that Kant answered Hume's objections. I tend to side with Hume and his generally skeptical views. However, even Hume admitted that, IN PRACTICE (you know, in the actual decisions we make in daily life), we DO act as if cause and effect was a law of nature. Yes, scientific laws are only good until they are disproven. Religious belief remains "true" even if disproven!!!
I'm honored to be among the writers whose work you enjoy, and I'm grateful that you read my opinion piece in the August Stereophile. But, with respect, I believe you've misinterpreted my point regarding the role of faith in my approach to the hobby. I didn't say that high-quality playback gear is good only because I have faith that it is so. Rather, I said that I was drawn to perfectionist audio out of faith that there had to exist better gear than the mass-produced junk du jour, and out of faith that the increase in quality it represents can and does make a difference in the enjoyment of music.
We all know people who enjoy music and who could afford better gear than they presently own, but who don't bother with perfectionist audio because they're satisfied with what they have: they don't think the increase in quality would matter when it comes to getting the most out of music. But I believe it *does* matter. We can all prove, through all manner of means, that "better" gear is, indeed, better -- but can we prove to the skeptic that that will matter to him or her? That's far less certain. And that's what I mean by the role played by faith.
Again, thanks for reading --
-- Art
Well, this is still very confusing. You clearly state in the article: "That evening was when I finally put my finger on the quality that separates me from the non-audiophile: faith. I believe. like Frankie Lane and the Buzzcoks and Saint Anthony, I believe. For no good reason, I believe." My problem is with your "for no good reason, I believe." Clearly, you have heard thousands of audio components over the years, and, clearly, your experience has led you to the KNOWLEDGE that some components sound better than others. And no, I do NOT believe that you actually became an audiophile because, at some point, you just decided that there "MUST be a better way to listen to records than on a Webcor record player--just as some people come away from their first trip to the theater or their first cigar or their first glass of wine and think: THAT WAS ALL RIGHT, BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING BETTER". IMO, this is simply nonsense. Of course, from a very early age, we ALL learn that we prefer some things to others. It would be an EXTREMELY nonsensical conclusion to make, after experiencing something for the first time, that that first experience, would be the "best ever" experience of that kind. That belief in "something better" is based on our experience from the time we were babies. No one ever, after tasting a great wine for the first time, kept tasting more wine based on faith that something better exists. First, our wine drinker might well decide that other wines might be interesting (not necessarily "better") in different ways than that first ever great wine. Second, wines (and cigars and audio equipment) are complex things, and different wines (or cigars or audio units) might be superior to that first experience in different aspects. A new wine might have a better finish than that first wine. Or a better aroma. Or be better balanced. Ditto for new cigars or audio equipment. All this is based on our experience. Nor do I believe that "the best any of us can do is to let the world see, at every opportunity, how recorded music has made us happy in an otherwise unhappy world." All my non-audiophile friends know that I love my audio system and that listening to it makes me happy. It's NOT that knowledge, but the direct experience of a great audio system that converted many of my non-audiophile friends. And, yes, in all this, a religious type faith contributes NOTHING. In fact, religious faith is the EXACT OPPOSITE of an audiophile or an enophile quest for the best or the better. Religious faith leads to the belief that one has found the ultimate truth, that God favors your religion to all others. Your church tells you to perform those rituals, that they are approved by God (or approved by God's chosen leaders, which is the same thing). A true audiophile or enophile does not blindly follow the pronouncements of an expert, but makes his own judgements, based on his experience. Those who blindly follow either an audio critic (say MF) or a wine reviewer (say Robert Parker), DO have a similar faith much like authoritarian religious faith: whatever the leader tells them, they believe.
Darn Art cant you keep a tight lip on the vintage kit? I collect restore vintage but if one keeps mentioning the good stuff to the masses it drys up quick. Let them buy new and stim the economy. Heck most will just buy what you mention to sit on a shelf unused. This also leads to the dreaded parting out of original loudspeakers so collectors can sit the drivers on a well lite shelf. Look about at collections you will see what I mention, check ebay for the great destruction of original RCA western electrics altecs tannoys etc just to make a quick buck.
I would suggest that it was NOT really a matter of faith that something better than mass-produced junk exists. For me, it was when I heard a friend's system based on tubes an an Altec speaker. Record after record brought me to tears! A similar thing occurred when I tasted a great wine for the first time (it was a 1974 Phelps, by the way). I don't believe it for a second that it is faith that separates you from your non-audiophile friends. There are thousands of very good reasons why you know that some audio components are better than others. Your question: "Is it foolish to spend $10,000 on an amplifier, or to stay up until 2 am adjusting speaker toe-in, or to waste a day comparing three different brands of the same vacuum tube, or to own five different pressings of the same record?" is correctly answered NOT by your "answer", "Of course it is." I would submit that you love doing those things precisely because they result in a better audio system, one that better communicates the emotion and beauty that often exists in those vinyl grooves. It's not the love of ritual, it's the love of better RESULTS that is decisive.
With respect, The Old School, you are confusing your opinions with mine.
I wrote an opinion piece expressing a strong point of view. You are not obliged to agree with it, but you *are* obliged to refrain from telling me what I think.
Here, you are simply wrong. Yes, of course, IMO. Making time consuming adjustments to your audio system or making costly (or cheap) purchases in an attempt to retrieve the beauty than lies in vinyl grooves is NOT, is NOT, is NOT a mater of faith OR "foolish" I just finished listening to one of my favorite vinyl records, "The Bill Evans Trio 'Live", with the Bob Devices Cinemag 1131 between my cartridge and preamp. Yes, it brought me to tears. What was better than before the 1131? Virtually everything, but especially the quality of the mid-bass and the timbre. I was in the audience when this record was recorded, and, with the 1131, I was BACK at the Trident in Sausalito in 1964!!! You take "faith", I'll take reality!!!
You had to be wrong due to politics. :)
I was about to say "What was I thinking?" But The Old School apparently knows the answer to that, too! :-)
Art,, your wasting your time if your trying to talk sense to" the old school" but he's good for a laugh anyway.
Love your work Art, but still prefer digital.
I don't know what you were thinking, but I do know you were trying to channel early American transcendentalism. Yawn. Just say some people are groovy, others are uptight, baby. That way John Atkinson won't get confused about what you mean with this "joy to be simple" schtick you got going on. He is British. Maybe start talking about how it requires some kind of "proof" in some sort of "meatpie" or something, and you will tune in even more.
You fail to see Mr. Dudley, "faith" is a colloquialism. It is not "deep." it is a manner of speaking no more privileged than someone who expresses everything in football metaphors.
High horse much?
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
> I was about to say "What was I thinking?" But The Old School apparently
> knows the answer to that, too! :-)
Perhaps I should eliminate the middleman and get The Old School to write
your column. After all, if he claims to know better than you do what
you are thinking...
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
sigh....this thread makes me not want to live on this planet anymore.
Yes, and there is this: IF Art if correct, that it is "foolish" to spend time and money on an attempt to improve an audio system, then it is also foolish for YOU to publish any observations Art makes!!! I think that is CHECKMATE!!!
I have already stated that Art is one of my 3 favorite audio reviewers. Must I agree that EVERYTHING that Art writes is correct?
Yes, of course, JA. NONE of your reviewers ever overstates his case or exaggerates (as AD CLEARLY does here). Clearly AD DOES NOT think he is foolish to spend time or money in an attempt to improve his audio system. Face it, Art was just confused in this case. And, yes, IMO Art has two of the very best ears of any audio reviewer. That DOESN"T mean he NEVER makes a mistake. After all even you, or I, occasionally also make a mistake.
And, yes, I'm particularly sensitive about matters of "faith". For one reason, here in the US, often matters of "faith" are held to be above question. Consider much of the recent criticism of the "Affordable Care Act". The leaders of the Catholic Church (IMO, just another cult, a very big cult) hold that their objection to birth control is a matter of "faith", and, we all know in matters like this, "faith" is sacred. The Catholic leaders claim, like seemingly all of the Republican party, that the government cannot force the church to pay taxes that support a system of health care that includes birth control. In fact, the Republican nuts in the House passed a bill that exempts any employer who objects, based on ANY belief of their personal faith, to ANY part of the health care bill!!! BTW, over 90% of Catholics use birth control!
In this case I DON"T believe you. You are I both know that is is NOT "foolish" to spend money or time in an attempt to improve your or my audio system. No you really DON'T love spending the time and money in that attempt in the same way you love following your religious rituals. Face it, you were exaggerating. Most of us do that from time to time.
Dear The Old School:
The fact that your original post is based on a misreading of my opinion piece in the August Stereophile stands as proof of your limited reading-comprehension skills. The fact that you have yet to even acknowledge your error is a sign of arrogance, and the fact that YOU SO OFTEN FEEL THE NEED TO WRITE IN UPPERCASE LETTERS is a sign of nuttiness.
But most of all, I don't need you to tell me what I think: I have a wife for that, thank you very much.
the old saw about mud wrestling with a pig . . . "the pig likes it!"
Regards, James
DUDLY WILL ALSO FIND A WAY TO ATTACK ONES CHARACTER....HAVE A BUNNY ART.
Also, IMO, 99% of the vinyl choice has to do with the ritual.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
This I don't get. I choose records which have music that I love. Ritual has NOTHING do do with it. BTW, unfortunately, the same people often possess stupidity and malice (for example, many of those of faith who "know" that the world is under 7,000 years old). Some of those even get elected to Congress, and try to impose their ignorant views on the rest of us.
Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts. Much of vinyl is a royal pain, but in many peoples' opinion, it's the most accurate at communicating the beauty of music. Digital is certainly more convenient, but I'm NOT lazy. For the masses of people who have never heard a great audio system, or who value convenience above accuracy, low res digital sound is "good enough".
You have faith in audio playback, you choose vinyl playback as your religion.
No?
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
"Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts."
Ummm, science is also based on faith. Faith in the scientific method at the least. Faith in your techniques, faith in your level of control. Look at how much faith you have in your tests and yet they are bogus. Not saying that the record may not sound better (or worse) than the CD, merely that your conclusion that records are more accurate is unsupportable based upon your experience.
The rub is that you are taking it as an element of faith that the systemic variables are controlled to the point where the only delta is the medium and you are far, far from that condition. Infinitely far actually since without qualifications it's a limit, not an achievable condition. And it's hard to do much better since so much of the chain is beyond your control. Too many uncontrolled variables...
I believe science and faith are both good things, but we need to know their limits.
Philosophic Rick
well, aren't we a specialist.
How do you know you are even actually reading this right now, Rick? You could be asleep and dreaming, so therefore, your act of reading this is an act of faith, even though you could, since this is a dream, fly like an eagle right now. But yet you are still reading this? Oh ye of little faith.
reductio ad absurdum is the technical term, btw, "philosophical rick"
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
"your act of reading this is an act of faith"
Oh, I thought that it was my belief that I was reading it that was...
Rick
You are VERY confused. How do you know that my tests are flawed? All of science continually tries to improve it's theories through further testing. Of course, you always try to control variables. Those who oppose blind listening tests are really just lazy. Yes, of course, IMO. BTW, MF has participated in dozens of these tests, with identical results.
"How do you know that my tests are flawed? "
I don't know that for sure. It's been my experience that anyone who believes that a science is about facts and that scientists don't need faith is not a first rate scientist and is unlikely to be a good experimenter.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
e
"How do you know that my tests are flawed?"
Because they rely on the "data" on the CD and LP being the same except for the medium and the digital and analog playback chains to sound the same. There are just too many variables.
You could cut out a bunch of them by using an A/D after your phono preamp to digitize your record then compare that back directly through the D/A and after being stored on a CDR.
Every step is fraught with difficulties but while fighting them you can glean some idea of the various sensitivities. I've enjoyed wonderful music from some CD's, from some records, from some tapes... That's the frustrating thing, if you can do it once, that means it's possible. Now how do you get it reliability? Luck seems to play a big role...
Best, Rick
where you are now comparing differences with them, not the medium.
How many different versions of DSOTM exist on digital alone?
"you are now comparing differences with [the masters], not the medium"
True, and even worse it's them AND the medium, so whose to blame?
Even 'identical' CD's played on the same chain may not sound the same. Back in the green pen days I bought three of the first Stereophile test CD's because they were 3/$10 or something and glad I did. Being the diligent experimentalist and all I made sure that the two test samples sounded the same prior to gooping one's edge and they didn't! So I tried the third and fortunately it sounded the same as one of the others so I was in business. And after gooping it they still sounded the same...
Rick
Yes, all of this is quite true, but as a practical matter, we have to compare what we have. Yes, there are way too many low res, compressed CDs. But still, almost all of those who now sing the praises of true high res digital, have been praising digital FOR DECADES!!! I admit high res digital HAS made a breakthrough in quality, but the lack of software is my main objection.
Tony Lauck would throw up at hearing about your experience.
My CBS CD1 test disc has a reference 1k level that is 0.2 dB over and unless I backoff, the sine wave has a flat top!
No, fmak. In those days, I threw up when listening to CDs. And it was obvious with my two box Proceed player that bits weren't just bits as the fiber optic cable did not sound as good as the coax.
It is not possible for a CD to have a reference level that is over 0dBfs. There is simply no way to encode such a number. If you are getting a flat top it is either because the test track isn't a sine wave or because something is not working properly in your equipment, i.e. you are getting digital or analog clipping somewhere.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I am telling you that the analog output of CD1 on some reference tracks exceeded the CD 0dB standard and are clipped. I actually measured the distorion thru a very high quality (almost textbook) dac.
According to what you said, there cannot be 'hot' CDs, which is not what happens in practice.
Rip the test disk and examine the samples numerically. You will find that no sample deviates from the allowed range of -32768 to +32767, inclusive. Therefore this test disk is a legal CD. A DAC should play it undistorted. If a DAC can not play it, it is a DAC problem. The most likely cause is limiting in the output of a digital filter. That this happens is evidence that the DAC designer was more interested in good numbers on a spec sheet rather than good sound. By sacrificing less than 1 dB of signal to noise ratio this problem could have been avoided.
Your comment about "hot" CDs is something else. In most cases idiot producers, engineers, and/or musicians are deliberately distorting their "music" with compression and even clipping in the hopes of selling copies to idiot customers who have never heard of a volume control. None of these CDs are too hot, they are just poor. When played on a good system they will sound the same as they did when played in the mastering studio.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Well, I have to admit that my friend's expensive high res digital system IS impressive. He made digital high res copies of some of my vinyl records, and I was hard pressed to tell the difference. In the end, there was a slight difference, but I was SHOCKED at how good his copies sounded. Only a few of my friends can tell the difference between my vinyl records and my friend's digital copies. Of course, this is a great sign for the future of the high end. Progress is sometimes slow and uncertain, but, sometimes, it does occur.
Do you know what ADC and DAC your friend used? Do you know the hires digital format used? It would also be helpful to have know the rest of the system to put the comparisons in perspective.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It's always a dac problem to you.
It was not only this dac, which is one of the best, but others as well. Rip it, do a fft analysis on any decent editor, and the distortion harmonics are there. The level is over the 0dB reference line. That is the proof of the pudding.
> > The level is over the 0dB reference line. < <
Can't be, something must be measuring an incorrect level because digital doesn't work beyond 0db!
I've recorded many LPs to digital, and I've clipped signals on numerous occasions. This is readily evident when measuring the results/levels ... numerically ... and NOT ONCE did I get a reading OVER 0db ... hence the "clipping".
You might want to share the data files for others to measure.
tb1
Show me the data. You can not do this. You are blowing smoke.Show me a single sample on the disk that is larger than +32767 or smaller than -32768. You can't. Such numbers do not correspond to any possible pattern of pits on the disk. What you describe is no more possible than a five digit odometer on an automobile showing a milage larger than 99,999. There is no magic here whatsoever. Every single bit on the disk can be identified and quantified using a microscope. It isn't even necessary to use a computer to demonstrate this point, but one will need to be a consummate "squint" to examine more than a tiny part of the disk. A competent engineer armed with a microscope and a copy of the Red book specification can do this. I doubt that you have ever read the red book specification or looked at an actual CD under a microscope.
I can take a 1 kHz sine wave in 44/16 format (dithered) and the spectrum shows a single peak, with noise at -128 dB. There are no harmonics. I can resample this to 176.4/16 and look at the spectra. Again no harmonics and the noise is at roughly the same level. If I play this test tone through my speakers there is no distortion at any volume level that I can stand. My system is not broken.
I don't know where you get these DACs that are "the best". If they can't play a simple test tone without distortion they are audiophool equipment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 07/11/12
is a pretty easy thing to distinguish 100% of the time. One has *obvious*, if not occasional cues that immediately give it away. :)
Having said that, I prefer the vinyl version to the CD of the same material in some cases because of a more natural sounding top end.
Your preference is your preference.
Yes, I agree that analogue high frequencies are more open and realistic than digital's high frequencies. Yes, just as in blind wine tasting tests, it's each individual's preference that is being tested. Each of us has different "reality triggers" (say dynamic range, flat frequency response, accurate timbre. etc.). Those components that hit your triggers are the best FOR YOU. In wine tastings, I prefer lower alcohol wines that express the terroir that they came from. I hate high alcoholic fruit bombs just as much as I hate thousand watt ss amps and inefficient speakers. Others, just love those 16% Pinot Noir wines.
right past you. :)
Exactly what did i miss?
.
Clever!!! VERY cleaver!!!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: