 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.199.93.253
In Reply to: You're Blinded By Believing The Science Being Used Reveal Everything! posted by thetubeguy1954 on June 23, 2006 at 13:10:24:
The old adage- If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail....I think the biggest mistake engineers and scientists make is the belief that the science as we know it provides adequate information for assessing a phenomenon. It often provides a guide for assessment, but further research is often needed to better understand the complete nature of the phenomenon.
Follow Ups:
You don't have an alternative! But you do like to waste bandwidth with your rants and misinformation.
d.b.
"You don't have an alternative!"No, you refuse to accept there may be an alternative. Hence you blow it off as "misinformation."
Speak up,now. Should we take the "dreamtime" myth in place of the big bang? How about evolution? you don't like that, either?
Hi JohnIn a way, this is like blind testing or trying to find out what reality is.
From before time = 0,to the “the event”, going forward for a considerable time, the scientific and various religious explanations have an equal footing so far as provable fact.Both approaches may be describing the same event, one using most ancient and the other most modern knowledge and words. Adaptive evolution is an obvious fact, however, that is an unsatisfying explanation as to “how” our planet went from a ball of 1500 degree lava to one covered by various life forms.
Consider too how much the meaning of words has changed and the impact on meaning that has.
For example, the Biblical quote “the meek shall inherit the earth”. Back then Meek meant an entirely different thing.
A D-9 bulldozer carefully driving around a clump of wild flowers is Meek, it is great power under precise control, not “wimpy” as in the current meaning and there are many examples of this. How can the bible be accessible, literal truth when the meaning of words has changed so much?The issue is too charged, based not of what can be proven or not but one of conviction to one of the two postures, much like either the dedicated golden ear or meter reader.
I used to work with a number of scientists, all very sharp people. It was funny, you would think that they would be aligned with the liberal, modern ridiculing religion posture that is projected as the “science” position.
With one exception, they were all pretty unsure, they took the position that unless something could be proved one way or the other, that that was a door which remained open a crack, including the idea of God.One of them, in a lunch table discussion of a friends work, an Indian fellow told of an elaborate way they were taking ultra high speed strobed Xray microphotographs of a molecule called a Ribosome (sp?).
It turned out it was a molecular machine made of protein, a tiny little factory. It has several places where building block atoms go in, there are parts that move (faster than could be resolved at the time) and finished protein molecules come out the end.
He made an interesting statement. He said “Well, you could put monkeys in a room with typewriters and so on…. But if you filled a room with machine parts and waited for ever, your will never have a machine assemble itself” Ribosome’s make the proteins they are made of.
This kind of thing made me alter my anti religious posture eventually to one where the door is open a crack.
The problem is, that when one goes well beyond the edge of what can be proven, measured, detected, one is stepping into faith, religious or scientific.Tom
This must have been an awful long time ago. And calling the ribosome a 'machine' is simply a human convention. Furtermore, why do you assume that because the details of the evolution of ribsomes aren't worked out, that the next best possibility is God?For some fairly recent reviews on the topic of the evolution of ribosomes and protein translation, see:
Bashan A, Yonath A.
Ribosome crystallography: catalysis and evolution of peptide-bond formation, nascent chain elongation and its co-translational folding.
Biochem Soc Trans. 2005 Jun;33(Pt 3):488-92. Review.
PMID: 15916549Ramakrishnan V, White SW.
Ribosomal protein structures: insights into the architecture, machinery and evolution of the ribosome.
Trends Biochem Sci. 1998 Jun;23(6):208-12. Review.
PMID: 9644974Wool IG, Chan YL, Gluck A.
Structure and evolution of mammalian ribosomal proteins.
Biochem Cell Biol. 1995 Nov-Dec;73(11-12):933-47. Review.
PMID: 8722009
"With one exception, they were all pretty unsure, they took the position that unless something could be proved one way or the other, that that was a door which remained open a crack, including the idea of God."When they do that, they take off their scientist hats and become the same frightened primitives who sat around a campfire 20,000 years ago looking up at the sky, wondering what it was all about, and scared of death. There is a big difference between the unknown and the unknowable. Once you understand that and that eventually all of the pieces will fall into place and our knowledge of how ribosomes and everything else could have evolved by itself, the door will slam tightly shut and lock out ignorance and absurd speculation masquerading as truth forever. It's a true believer's worst nightmare. That's why they had the Inquisition, to stave off that eventuality and that's why they hate Galileo to this day 500 years after his death. It's also why people who buy and sell expensive audio cables hate even the talk of double blind tests.
HiThe strongest impression I had was that unlike the “Liberal, anti religious” fringe and the “Religion is all” fringe, they were not inclined to have the air of smug, condescending all knowing certainty, that both poles, especially the liberals, seems to have in spades and that I find so repulsive.
Tom
Evolution is not a liberal/conservative issue, it is a science/anti science issue. ALL of the scientific evicence points clearly to it even if all of the pieces haven't been found yet and even if all the pieces we do have don't quite seem to fit yet, there is no other alterantive explanation which rationally fits together all of the evidence we have so far nearly as well. Creationism or whatever the current incarnation religious zealots want to shove down the throats of public schools students in the midwest United States is called, is the laughing stock of the scientific community. The so called scientists the creationists cite for their justification aside, there are no mainstream scientists working on the problem who give it anything but evolution credibility. Insofar as scientists working in other fields are concerned, as I said, once they take off their scientist hats, they are no different than the other primitives no matter how impressive their credentials in their own field of expertise. And that goes even for an Albert Einstein.
HiTo me, I would describe the situation as related to the anti Christmas movement, the non-religious Liberal side trying to dominate / over power the Religious / Conservative side. It is clearly a fight for control.
Evolution and Creation are theories, evolution is visible in forms as “proof” in everyday life and so is an exploited chink in contemporary religious sides armor.Both sides, at the extremes are emotional, inflexible, close minded and work hard as they can to show the validity of their individual positions, ridicule the other side for being feeble minded.
While it is possible for one extreme position or another to actually be correct, I can’t think of an example at the moment, generally the truth is not at the extremes.“Insofar as scientists working in other fields are concerned, as I said, once they take off their scientist hats, they are no different than the other primitives no matter how impressive their credentials in their own field of expertise. And that goes even for an Albert Einstein.”
Um, it seems to me that scientists are people who are taking there best educated guess when treading on new ground, a science hat on or off makes them no less human or intelligent.
Albert Einstein, stepping well outside nuclear physics for example said he was glad for the establishment of Israel BUT he had grave concerns that unless the Palestinians were treated as equals in there own land, that there would never be peace in the middle east.
As he feared, they were never treated as equals and were abused killed in large quantity, the Arab worlds sympathies fell behind there brothers, our domestic news media didn’t bother to cover the abuse all these years and then America was surprised by 911.
Why are they so mad at us???? America, even now, doesn’t have a clue except possible “religious insanity”.
Having been in the Middle east (Egypt) before 911, the source of anger was obvious, Einstein was right..Tom
.
These guys tend to be very vocal in the criticisms, but do a disappearing act when it comes to something verifiable, & repeatable.
d.b.
Provided of course we use my system, in my room of which I am intimately familiar. I am willing to prove I can hear the differences I claim to! I live in Orlando, Fl and I don't expect anyone to come here for the sole purpose of conducting this test. But should any of you Objectivists be coming to DisneyLand, Universal or Seaworld anyway, why not stop in and be unplesantly surprised when I prove my claims?See Dan once again you're incorrect. Although I am one of THESE GUYS who tends to be very vocal in my criticisms, I do NOT do a disappearing act when it comes to something verifiable, & repeatable. I just cannot get one of YOU GUYS to take me up on my offer to provide the proof you require, yet definitely don't want to believe can be provided!
Thetubeguy1954
because there is not one single repeatable specification in your post. Typical audiophile BS.
d.b.
Dan, you are almost a joke, but like Pink Floyd said, but you're really a cry.I guess you haven't got the intelligence to fiqure my post out so I'll explain it real simple. I'll submit to whatever Objectivist DBT BS "you guys" require, provided we use my system in my room of which I am intimately familar!
Anything else is just pure Objectivist BS designed to make one fail. You are the epitome of Objectivistic behavior, first you outright lie by stating "These guys tend to be very vocal in the criticisms, but do a disappearing act when it comes to something verifiable, & repeatable." Then when caught in your lie, like I did when I said I'd submit to your tests using my equipment you pretend that supports your lie by stating "there is not one single repeatable specification in your post. Typical audiophile BS."
Liar liar liar liar liar Liar liar liar liar liar Liar liar liar liar liar Liar liar liar liar liar Liar liar liar liar liar Liar liar liar liar liar Liar liar liar liar liar....
Thetubeguy1954
I am interested in you putting up the engineering spec's that you require for what you think is a good system. Now put up or shut up.
d.b.
More Objectivist BS. Although I've told you many times in the past I'm NOT technically inclined you are attempting to bully me with technical information you require i.e. "...I am interested in you putting up the engineering spec's that you require for what you think is a good system." You always do this when confronted by less technically inclined persons. You are only proving your the Bully I've accused you of being in the past!My system is so much better than just a good system. It consists of a Mastersound Reference 845, integrated SET. The source is a BlueNote Stibbert CDP. The speakers use my Aliante Pinafarina Ones for lows and partial midrange, and this crosses over to very large wooden horns using pre-1990 TAD 2001 compression drivers that have been fully restored & modified by Paul Butterfield (who also restored and modded TADs for Nelson Pass, Tom Danley & Dr Bruce Edgar to name just a few) to cover the reamining spectrum of music.
But I digress because as in typical Objectivist fashion you are trying to change the original topic once caught in your lie, the lie being your statement of "These guys tend to be very vocal in the criticisms, but do a disappearing act when it comes to something verifiable, & repeatable." (This can be verified by clicking on the link below) To your lie I answered:
"...I am one of THESE GUYS who tends to be very vocal in my criticisms, I do NOT do a disappearing act when it comes to something verifiable, & repeatable. I just cannot get one of YOU GUYS to take me up on my offer to provide the proof you require, yet definitely don't want to believe can be provided!"
Now you claim you don't want something verifiable, & repeatable. Now in a rather in a pathetic attempt to appear correct after being caught in your lie you are now claiming you are "...interested in (my) putting up the engineering spec's that (I) require for what (I) think is a good system."
This has NOTHING to do with what you originally said. Please explain how my putting up the engineering spec's that (I) require for what (I) think is a good system, has ANYTHING to do with your original statement of: These guys tend to be very vocal in the criticisms, but do a disappearing act when it comes to something verifiable, & repeatable?
The ONLY thing your new statement about engineering spec's does is represents nicely the typical Objectivist behavior of always needing to be right, even if it means discarding your original statement completely and changing the topic in order to do so.
You are so pathetic Dan, you cannot stick to your original statement when someone accepts the challenge you claim makes people like me run! We need to add a new topic to Debunking Tools. I think we should call this new debunking tool, "The Banquer" The Banquer is when the poster changes the topic of thier original post to a completely different subject for ANY reason! Or as Dan did to: a) ignore the acceptance of his implied challenge or b) just to appear correct.
You told me to put up or shut up Dan, but I'd tell you to be ready to defend your beliefs as originally stated or don't put them in print where you lies and deceptive tactics can be so easily verified. Because when I did "put up" and accept your implied challenge the only one who ran WAS YOU!
Thetubeguy1954
Not one spec listed for frequency response, distortion, noise, input/output impedance, grounding, etc.etc. Just more insults. I am wasting my time here. Get a life.
d.b.
, that iswhen your implied challenge is accepted! Did you forget that you lied when you said: These guys tend to be very vocal in the criticisms, but do a disappearing act when it comes to something verifiable, & repeatable? Did you further forget that I said I'd submit to something verifiable, & repeatable as long as it was done in my home with my system?So what in GOD's name does that have to do with my providing you with one spec listed for frequency response, distortion, noise, input/output impedance, grounding, etc? etc?
If you consider my telling the TRUTH to be "Just more insults" (because you did lie) then yes you are just wasting my time here. You really do need to stop pulling "Banquers" and get a life, "IF" you are going to completely change the topic and run when your lies are exposed and your implied challenges are accepted!
Thetubeguy1954
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
