 
|
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 |
207.200.116.133
In Reply to: What "agenda" is that? posted by Pat D on December 10, 2006 at 10:09:58:
"Just what are those "beliefs?" Please specify."Amplifiers sounding the same
CD players sounding the same
CD playback perfection
All cables sounding the same
"Tweaks" are snake oil
"Please remember, we are not the ones making claims that differences between various accurate amps are audible, that differences in wires are normally audible."Indeed you guys are the ones making the assertion that they are not audible.
" Those who do make such claims have the burden of proof."
Really? Why is that? Why do I have any burden of proof about my subjective opinions? No, the objectivists have the burden of proof because they are the ones claiming their position is scientific. Anyone making *that* claim bears a burden of proof. I no more have a burden of proof in regards to my *opinions* about audio than I do with my opinions about what burger joint has the best burgers. I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE MY SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS OF MY AESTHETIC EXPERIENCES ARR SCIENTIFICALLY VALID.Period."And if certain things are proven to be audible, what objection do you have to saying so?"
Oh none. Please show me any peer reviewed published scientific research that proves amps sound the same or CD players sound the same or that CD playback is transparent in practice or that all cables sound the same. Please show me the *legitimate* science that supports the objectivists assertions on audibility.
____________________________________________________________
Follow Ups:
Sorry, most of us have no particular agenda as to how equipment sounds.Let's take the alledged beliefs you cite:
"Amplifiers sounding the same [some amplifiers sound different]
CD players sounding the same [some few actually do sound different]
CD playback perfection [prove people can detect the difference between the source and the CD in playback]
All cables sounding the same [some cables do sound different under some circumstances.]
"Tweaks" are snake oil" [some tweaks work]Where do we make such claims? You are overgeneralizing. In fact, instances can be found in which such claims have been proven not to be true. So no, we wouldn't accept such universal propositions. I think you have been reading our opponents formulation of our opinions, which is itself bad methodology. Peter Aczel might make some such claims, but the objection is fairly trivial. First, such claims are merely the null hypothesis, which cannot be absolutely proven. Second, Aczel would have to modify such assertions if proper evidence was found.
You misunderstand the concept of burden of proof. You can have all the "subjective beliefs" you want, but we simply point out that if there is any proof to be done, it's up to those making the claims. You don't have to prove them if you don't want to. But if someone claims that some expensive speaker wire sounds different from, say, 12 gauge speaker wire from the hardward store, that is a testable claim and there is no reason for anyone to believe the claim without some good evidence. If you want to make unlikely claims but don't want to prove them, don't complain when somebody points out said claims have not been proven.
Because you wrote about saying what is audible and what is not, I specifically asked you what objection you had to proving something IS audible, and you have said, "None." Despite what some have tried to say (mkuller), some DBTs have had positive results.
"Please show me any peer reviewed published scientific research that proves amps sound the same or CD players sound the same or that CD playback is transparent in practice or that all cables sound the same."
It is easier to prove two things are different than to prove two things are the same (outside of mathematics). Just how would you propose to prove a difference is inaudible using statistics?
"Please show me the *legitimate* science that supports the objectivists assertions on audibility."
You have misunderstood what those assertions are. Also, it seems you want some to justify their assertions on audibility but do not demand that subjectivists support their assertions on audibility. You are hardly being consistent here.
"I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE MY SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS OF MY AESTHETIC EXPERIENCES ARR SCIENTIFICALLY VALID.Period."
Who is asking you to validate your subjective impressions or aesthetic experiences? You may have many different aesthetic experiences even with the same object. We are talking about detection of differences.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
and don't want anyone to notice.> > Please show me any peer reviewed published scientific research that proves amps sound the same or CD players sound the same or that CD playback is transparent in practice or that all cables sound the same."
> It is easier to prove two things are different than to prove two things are the same (outside of mathematics). Just how would you propose to prove a difference is inaudible using statistics?
Nice try. Bottom line is ya got nothin. If you can't provide it don't ask it of others. THAT is the double standard I speak of.
> > Please show me the *legitimate* science that supports the objectivists assertions on audibility."> You have misunderstood what those assertions are.
Prove it.
> Also, it seems you want some to justify their assertions on audibility but do not demand that subjectivists support their assertions on audibility. You are hardly being consistent here.Oh contrare. It is the objectivists who are not being consistant. OTOH if you have any scientifically valid proof for your objectivists assertions on what is and is not audible I'd love to see it.I ask only to show the hypocracy of the objectivists who demand that of subjectivists.
Analog Scott,Give up you cannot win an arguement with Pat D. Not because he actual wins the debate or proves his point, but rather because he mis-directs, twists what you actually say to fit what he believes etc. while accusing you of doing the very same things!
Take for example where Pat D asked you "Just what are those "beliefs?" Please specify." One of your four responses was
"All cables sounding the same" to which Pat responded some cables do sound different under some circumstances. Now that comment from Pat would almost lead you to believe Pat actually believes that cables do indeed sound different, wouldn't it? However what Pat really means is that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time the differences in cables are inaudible. But being the audio Politician he is he won't come out and say that. In fact the closest I've ever seen Pat D honestly state his beliefs on wires is in this post where he's replying to regmac:http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26124.html
In this post Pat D states: As I've been saying, we can't say cables make no difference under any circumstances since audible differences have been proven under some circumstances--only as you say, those circumstances aren't likely in an intelligently put together audiophile system. Which is exactly what I've been saying.
See how clever Pat D is? Debate Pat on wires and he'll make statements that lead you to believe he doesn't believe wires are audibly different. Call him on this and he'll demand proof where he ever said all wires sound the same. Yet he actually believes the circumstances where wires could sound different aren't likely in an intelligently put together audiophile system. Which is essentially all wires we would be speaking about!
So it's catch 22. Everytime you talk about the typical music lovers audio system, which will be an intelligently put together audiophile system Pat D won't believe there'll be audible differences in wires. Yet because it's been proven "scientifically" I guess that 20 or 30 ft wires cab audibly be different, Pat will claim he doesn't believe all wires wound the same. Yet in an intelligently put together audiophile system wires are inaudible, still it's been proven that 20 or 30 ft wires cab audibly be different, yet in an intelligently put together audiophile system wires are inaudible etc. A most clever audio politician, huh?
Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
"Mkuller or anyone else is free to prove audibility under other circumsatnces, if desired."You see, it is always possible that someone will prove wires are audible under other circumstances. Our position is quite open to new knowledge.
Just giving a link doesn't prevent you from misrepresentation by selective quotation.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,The reason I didn't add the last line of your post, i.e. "Mkuller or anyone else is free to prove audibility under other circumsatnces, if desired." is because I didn't feel it was germane to what I was saying.
Plus you are a big boy and can respond like you did, thus mentioning what you felt, but I didn't, should be added.
Lastly because even when I do quote you and provide a link to your entire post so the readers can read your words in their exact context, you cry you've been misquoted or quoted out of context or whatever else you might think of to make your own quoted words seem damaging.
That's why Pat...
Thetubeguy1954
You didn't quote it because it didn't support your point! But it was certainly germane to the issue, as it proves that I am open to someone providing proof of audible differences.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
I/m not trying to convince Pat but expose him.I suppose it is just old news for some like yourself. My real hope is that other audiophiles see that it isn't science that runs against their perceptions but objectivists and their misrepresentation fo science and their use of a double standard to attack things that run contrary to their beliefs. That is why I keep asking for the valid science that supports their beliefs. I hope others will notice they have no answer to this demand. The demand they regularly make upon us.
Hi Analog Scott,I know you're attempting to expose Pat's double standards. These double standards are what I call being an audio politician. I've attempted to intelligently & civially debate Pat for quite some time now and it's IMHO an impossibility. Not because Pat ever actually out-debates you, but rather because Pat plays audio politics.
No matter what you do you cannot win. For example if quote Pat and provide direct a link to his post from which you pulled the quote, thus allowing the readers to read the words in context. Pat will respond that he's been misquoted or quoted out of context or whatever else Pat can think of to make the quoted words seem damaging to his POV. Yet all anyone needs to do is read his entire post to see he actually wasn't misquoted or quoted out of context.
Or another example of Pat's audio politics is you can quote Pat directly and he'll just claim you're making up opinions and attributing them to him! Sometimes I cannot believe the sheer audacity Pat displays. How anyone can say others are making up opinions and attributing them to him like Pat does when what he's denying is what's been said in his quoted words! Thiss behavior from Pat I find very insulting for he's treating us like we're idiots who cannot read and understand what he's said.
Or perhaps the perfect example would be the time when I quoted Pat's own opinion of his own speakers. I took a quote from Pat directly from Inmate's Systems. When Pat read my post it was quite obvious he didn't realize he was reading his own words, for Pat stated that if this was my opinion of his Paradigm Signature S2's capabilities then I was lying when I claimed I listened them! So in other words Pat read his own quoted words, mistakenly thought it was my opinion, and then claimed that if that was my opinion of his speakers capabilities I couldn't have possibly have ever heard them! When I responded to this accusation from Pat, I pointed out that I was quoting his words about his speakers from Inmate's Systems!
Now here's Pat with his face completely covered in egg. Did Pat apologize and say he made a mistake in attributing his words to me? NO! So how did Pat explain away why he attacked his own opinion on his speakers? How did Pat address this faux pas? Pat employed his audio politics by simply by ignoring what the real issue was, i.e. Pat attacked his own opinion of his speakers.
Pat's next move was to redirect the entire issue. The issue was no longer about the mistake Pat made. Oh no, now the issue was me and how I Pat felt intentionally trying to decieve him! For Pat D said "...but you showed no inkling in the link below that it was a small standmount monitor but accepted the 20 Hz figure without comment. What WAS I to think?" Yet even all these claims by Pat were incorrect for the post Pat criticized I stated quite clearly in the subject line Your EXACT Words Pat So Pat was suppose to think I'm quoting him! Which I made quite clear. Check the link.
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=22779&highlight=trickster+Pat+D&session=
Then to support this path which Pat now took he called me a trickster and explained what the definition of a trickster was. Then he began justifying his mistake and starting blaming me for decieving him. Here's a link to that quite laughable response...
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=22957&highlight=trickster+Pat+D&r=&session=
Now should Pat D claim what I'm saying isn't true I'd recommend you start at this post
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=22758&highlight=trickster+Pat+D&r=&session=Pat calls it "You mean like pretending to be familiar with my speakers when you are not?" and then just read through the entire thread and see how many times I gave Pat a way out, to admit he was wrong. Then watch an audio politican in action...
Thetubeguy1954
You exposed the very audio politics you claim are in play. Hence you showed it wasn't about science or objectivity but about a hypocritical aproach of an objectivist defending his *beliefs* about audio. Anyone who reads it has been done a favor. Thank you
Aside from Tom making a question into an assertion, and taking a statement from the section called "System Strengths," in a system containing a large subwoofer, you guys will have to explain about "audio politics." And don't let Tom play innocent.How does catching me in a careless statement among numerous postings do anything of the following:
1) show DBT methodology is unreliable?
2) show that you, Tom, and others can actually detect the sonice differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things?
3) show that the golden ears can hear what they claim they do?You have thus far failed to come up with anything like a correct statement of my alleged "beliefs" about audio, and I imagine you won't be able to explain what "audio politics" is, either.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat this is a PERFECT example of you playing Audio Politician. As I stated previously you never actually win a debate or prove your point, but rather you mis-direct and twist what's been actually said to fit what you believe. Menwhile you're accusing others of doing the very same things! So someone who behaves like you do is guilty of playing "audio politics!" So there's your explinantion.Another example of your "audio politics" is the catch 22 you set up about the audibilty of wires. Everytime you debate anyone about the typical music lovers audio system, which will be an intelligently put together audiophile system, you, Pat D don't believe there'll be audible differences in wires. Yet because it's been proven "scientifically" (or so I assume, because you always want science to verify what's heard) that 20 or 30 ft wires can audibly be different, you'll now claim this proves you doesn't believe all wires sound the same. That allows you to ride both sides of the fence, which is what politicians do Pat. In all actuality you believe an intelligently put together system won't have audible differences in wires, which is essentially ALL audio systems or 99.99999999999999999999999999% of what we'll be debating about here in Prop Head Forum all the time! So when a proponent or subjectivist states that you believe all wires sound the same you'll pull the obscure 20-30ft wires can sound audibly different trick out of your hat. This in turn allows you to play a little Catch-22 game while debating the proponents of audible differences in wires. i.e. in an intelligently put together audiophile system wires are inaudible, still it's been proven that 20 or 30 ft wires can audibly be different so see I don't believe ALL wires sound the same, yet in an intelligently put together audiophile system which is essentially all systems, wires are inaudible, still it's been proven that 20 or 30 ft wires can audibly be different so see I don't believe ALL wires sound the same, yet in an intelligently put together audiophile system which is essentially all systems, wires are inaudible, etc. As I've said before you're a most clever audio politician.
You're even playing audio politican here. Why? Because Analog Scott and I were talking about you and how it's impossible to actually debate you because you use "double-standards" as Analog Scott said and play "audio-politics" as I said. Your being an audio politicain is displayed when you responded by changing the topic being discussed into:
How does catching me in a careless statement among numerous postings do anything of the following:
1) show DBT methodology is unreliable?
2) show that you, Tom, and others can actually detect the sonice differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things?
3) show that the golden ears can hear what they claim they do?This is a classic example of you first mis-directing and then twisting the topic to be what you want to talk about. Neither Analog Scott nor I claimed that what you did had anything to do with the 3 questions you asked. What Analog Scott and I were actually discussing was the futility of debating one such as yourself who uses "double-standards" and plays "audio-politics." So now Pat please tell us how raising the 3 questions you did in any way, shape or form addresses the topic Analog Scott and I were discussing! It doesn't and you know it doesn't.
What it proves is you play audio politician. What you're doing now is exactly the same thing you did when you got caught attacking your own opinion of your speakers. Just like that time you're now attempting to redirect the entire issue Analog Scott and I were discussing. The issue is no longer about the double-standards & audio politics of Pat D. Oh no, now the issue is about how Pat wants to know, How does catching him in a careless statement among numerous postings do anything of the following: 1) show DBT methodology is unreliable? 2) show that you, Tom, and others can actually detect the sonice differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things? 3) show that the golden ears can hear what they claim they do?
It's just one more fine example of Pat D's audio politics in action via mis-directing and twisting what's been actually said to fit what you believe or in this case actually want to talk about. Face Pat it appears others are finally catching on to your tactics. Heck even bjh told you Enough BS ... consider yourself ignored. I think kerr summed you up pretty well when he said "When I demand something and no one drops it at my feet (most of the time), I go find it myself. You prefer to wait until someone drops it at your feet, all the while demanding someone do so." That's you in a nutshell Pat. You're always demanding, never giving, assuming without ever asking a question and when people don't respond to your demands you act as if their unable or incompetent with comments like Can't understand the issues, eh? or something else derogatory like that. It seems that people are finally seeing you for who you really are.
Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
However, you and Analog Scott are devoting a great deal of time attacking me. This does nothing to further audio discussions on such things as"1) is DBT methodology is unreliable?
2)can you and others can actually detect the sonic differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things?
3) can the golden ears can hear what they claim they do?Logic has never been your strong point. You seem totally unable to grasp the concept of suspension of judgment. You guys propose some universal negative propositions which you maintain I somehow must hold. When I prove that I don't hold them, you whine, and then make up some other propositions which you think I have to hold (which in fact I don't have to hold). None of which has anything to do with proving you can hear what you claim to be able to.
You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is.
Neither have you shown I have a double standard of proof.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,
I feel sorry for you, I really do. Analog Scott & I were simply discussing why attempting to debate with you intelligently is a lesson in futility and you somehow you twist that into being attacked? Pat you are way to paranoid. No one is out to get you. We simply don't wish to waste our time attempting to discuss/debate with people who use double-standards or play audio politics. You turned what was a harmless post into one that's starting to get personal because YOU brought it down that path.Now as far as your comment of: You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is. With some embarrassment I feel it necessary to inform you I most certainly did! But unfortunately it was obviously over your head or you would have understood that I had done so. Sorry about that, I truly am. I explained it as simply as I can. Perhaps you could print out what I wrote and have your wife or co-worker explain in to you?
Now you are absolutely 100% correct when you said what Analog Scott and I were discussing doesn't have anything to do with furthering audio discussions on such things as: 1) is DBT methodology is unreliable? 2)can you and others can actually detect the sonic differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things? 3) can the golden ears can hear what they claim they do? But then again as I've told once and now for a second time, why would it when the topic of our discussion was the futility of attempting to have a technical debate with you intelligently due to your use of double standards and playing audio politics.
In fact these comments of yours is just another fine example of Pat D's audio politics at work. You're behaving exactly like when you got caught attacking your own opinion of your speakers. Blame others, Switch the topic & Claim being misunderstood or tricked if unable to outright deny something. That's similair to what you're doing here once again.
First: Take the limelight off yourself by switching the blame to someone else. In this case you start with the tactic of attributing to others your short comings i.e, Logic has never been your (Pat D's) strong point.
Second: Now switch the actual topic being discussed (why attempting to debate with you intelligently is a lesson in futility)to what you want to talk about instead: You guys propose some universal negative propositions which you maintain I somehow must hold. GOD Pat this is getting old it really is. You're always whining about be misquoted, quoted out of context, being misunderstood, attacked, deceived or tricked etc., oh poor Pat. So many people don't understand him...
Third: You make claims that just aren't true, i.e. "When I prove that I don't hold them." You certainly haven't proven that to my or most likely bjh or Analog Scotts satisfaction.
Forth: Return to placing your attributes on others, you whine. Pat if anyone is whinning here it's you about being attacked & misunderstood.
Fifth: Return back to switching the actual topic (why attempting to debate with you intelligently is a lesson in futility) to: None of which has anything to do with proving you can hear what you claim to be able to.
Seems like people are finally seeing you for who you really are. You're constantly placing your attributes on others, switching from the actual topic being discussed, whining and claiming to be either quoted out of context, misquoted, misunderstood or attacked. Finally when none of those work for you, you just ignore what the poster said and insult them.
Now as there's nothing more constructive to be said about this topic and IMHO it will only digress further & further (just like when I attempted discussing my opinion of your and my speakers with you) this will be my final post on the matter. Now Pat I'll leave you to have the last word which you so desperately crave and always seem to have.
Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
1) What does the term "audio politics" mean?2) What are the "double standards" you guys allege I employ?
N.B. I am hardly responsible for opinions which you and Analog Scott make up and attribute to me.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
What exactly didn't you understand about it? Please be specific. Did you read what I said about it?
Hello Analog Scott,What Pat D is doing now is another classic example of his audio politics in action. Allow me to reveal what's happening. I've seen Pat do these things so many times now I can almost know what he'll say next sometimes. In this case I had explained this to Pat previously:
As I stated previously you (Pat D) never actually win a debate or prove your point, but rather you mis-direct and twist what's been actually said to fit what you believe. Menwhile you're accusing others of doing the very same things! So someone who behaves like you do is guilty of playing "audio politics!" So there's your explinantion.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26251.htmlYet after reading that Pat uses one of his many audio politic tricks. In this case it's to ignore completely what your opponent has written, then pretend they never answered your question and ask it again! Which is exactly what Pat D did when he said: You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26254.htmlHowever just a brief look at the numbers assigned to the posts reveals this is just another example of Pat's playing the "dirty" audio politician in his debating tactics. My explinantion of audio politics is # 26251 and Pat D's twisting of the truth when he claims You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is. Is # 26254 three posts after I already explained what audio politics is!
Analog Scott I liked your response to Pat D's post called "Short questionnaire." You asked Pat What exactly didn't (he) understand about it? Please be specific. Did (he) read what (you) said about it? But unfortunately Pat is attempting to use the same tactic he did with me, i.e. ignore completely what your opponent has written, then pretend they never answered your question and ask it again!
When Pat untruthfully claimed I (thetubeguy1954) still haven't told us what "audio politics" is. I responded by telling Pat (It's) With some embarrassment I feel it necessary to inform you (Pat) I most certainly did! But unfortunately it was obviously over your head or you would have understood that I had done so. Sorry about that, I truly am. I explained it as simply as I can. Perhaps you could print out what I wrote and have your wife or co-worker explain in to you?
After watching Pat D in action for some time now I've become aware of some of Pat's many audio politic tactics that he frequently uses. This will include combinations of these things below:
1) Claim to be misquoted
2) Claim to be quoted out of context
3) Claim to be misunderstood
4) Claim to be attacked, deceived or tricked etc
5) Claim your opponent doesn't think logically (which he uses to enforce 1-4 above)
6) Switch the actual topic being debated to what he wants to debate
7) Blame others of doing the things he does
8) Make untrue claims like I've already proven that, when he hasn't
Pat will usually follow one of four basic methods operation (or some combination of them):a) Blame others, Claim being misunderstood, deceived or tricked if unable to outright deny something & then switch the topic.
b) Place his attributes on his opponents, start whining and claiming he's either being quoted out of context, misquoted, misunderstood or attacked and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
c) When these don't work as planned for Pat, he'll just ignores what his opponent said and either insult them or alternatively Pat will ask a question that's already been answered, while claiming it's never been answered and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
d) Finally if none of those work Pat will simply claim the opponents can't think logically and start blaming them of creating strawman arguements and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
If you'll re-read any of the posts where Pat has debated an opponent you'll see that he does some combination of A through D above consistently everytime. In fact he's down to D with you now, because his other tactics failed. It's getting so that I can read Pat D like a book!
Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
My, you do go on and on!
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,The reason for Analog Scott's and my posts were to explain to each other and anyone else who reads them why it's impossible to prove our POV with an Audio Politician like yourself. Why? Because you have so many audio politic tactics that you frequently use that are employed deliberately to prevent the furthering of the issue being discussed and to obscure the topic as much as possible.
Like I've said many time now, you're always: 1) Claiming to be misquoted, 2) Claiming to be quoted out of context, 3) Claiming to be misunderstood, 4) Claiming to be attacked, deceived or tricked etc. 5) Claiming your opponent doesn't think logically (which you use to enforce numbers 1-4) 6) Switching the actual topic being debated to what you wants to debate, 7) Blaming others of doing the things you do or 8) Making untrue claims like you've already proven something when you hasn't!
Pat you usually follow one of four basic methods operation (or some combination of them) which is to: a) Blame others, claim being misunderstood, deceived or tricked if you're unable to outright deny something & then switch the topic, b) Place your attributes on your opponents, start whining and claim you're either being quoted out of context, misquoted, misunderstood or attacked and then switch from the actual topic being discussed, c) When these don't work as planned for you Pat, you'll just ignores what your opponent said and either insult them or alternatively you'll ask them a question they've already been answered and claim it's never been answered. Then you switch from the actual topic being discussed, d) Finally if none of those work for you Pat, you'll simply claim the opponents can't think logically, then start blaming them of creating strawman arguements and as usual then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
Pat if you'll re-read any of the posts where you have debated an opponent you'll see some combination of A through D above employed consistently everytime. So what I did was prove via a detailed explinantion why it's impossible to prove our POVs with an Audio Politician like yourself! That was the purpose of our posts and we succeeded in what we set out to do. Even now you are behaving like I've described the typical Pat D does. Hence you're attampting to turn the topic of our posts (which is the audio polictic games you play) into something you wish to speak of instead, i.e. talking about me!
Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
N
It's not a standard term with a recognized meaning. TG54 refuse to actually provide a definition of audio politics and what it's all about.Audio politics means ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
I'll try to tackle Audio Politician later! :)
You could do a search for the term instead of simply making a silly definition for an important technical word.[If you do, you'll see I'm just joking.]
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
As I have pointed out many times, one cannot prove the null hypothesis in statistics. I am not responsible for some contrary impression you and tubeguy have formed about my opinions, simply because you want me to believe something else. You have made up a straw man. One cannot absolutely prove the null hypothesis in statistics. Period.Now, if you have something relevant to say, say it. Meanwhile, it remains that human perception overdetects differences and is unreliable for detecting small differences. That's just the way we're built.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
nt
I know, that's not quite fair, but you didn't specify. The devil made me do it!
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
try to keep up
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You just can't deal with it
You failed to meet your burden of proof.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
please find one false statement I have made about you and prove it is false
Where's your evidence I hold the opinions you set out in the post linked below?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
try again
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
But you needed an explination. so sad
nt
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
I suspect you have a lot of goofy ideas. thanks for admitting you lack the smarts to negotiate a simple spelling error.
Sorry, doesn't work that way.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You seem to be making up things.Objectivism is the name for the philosohy of Ayn Rand. I am not one of them.
You seem to have some strange ideas about proof and seem to think one can prove a negative as easily as one can prove a positive.
Let's take a big piece of forest land.
Hypothesis: There are deer in the forest.
Null Hypothesis: There are no deer in the forest.Well, it's pereminently obvious that it's easy to prove the hypothesis: all you have to do is find one or more deer and.
But it's much more difficult to prove that there are no deer in the forest. You could search a long time and not find any, but you might have missed them.
Q.E.D
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
> Hypothesis: There are deer in the forest.
Null Hypothesis: There are no deer in the forest.Well, it's pereminently obvious that it's easy to prove the hypothesis: all you have to do is find one or more deer <
Exactly.
The problem is the subjectivist has seen the deer and has no reason or desire to prove the hypothesis to you. You are skeptical and the desire for proof is all yours. So why not go see if you can find some deer? If you make a concerted effort and find none, the null hypothesis is much more reliable, although not absolutely true. Until you do, your demands for us to prove the hypothesis sound a bit...well... hypothesisically hypocritical.
Well, finding deer is fairly straightforward, no statistics required in the problem as stated, either you find tracks, droppings, etc., or actually see the deer (of course, lots of people shoot farm animals and sometimes other hunters/people thinking they're deer!). I was simply illustrating that it is easier to prove the hypothesis than the null hypothesis. At least you grasp that part, but Analog Scott apparently doesn't.Detection of small audio differences is less straightforward and statistical analysis of controlled blind test results has worked for many decades. In statistics, you can prove the hypothesis (to a degree of certainty) but not the null hypothesis. No matter how many times the null hypothesis has failed to be disproven, someone might disprove it in the future.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
I know what you were illustrating but it seems you missed my point.When I demand something and no one drops it at my feet (most of the time), I go find it myself. You prefer to wait until someone drops it at your feet, all the while demanding someone do so.
Our styles, like our audio points of view, are clearly different.
It's out there. Want it? Go get it.
I just point out sometimes that some make claims for which there is no good evidence. People make all sort so claims about interconnects and speaker cables, for example--granted, less far out than Shakti stones, Intelligent Chips, etc.--for which there is no evidence.Now, when I say I demand evidence, it only applies to you if you want to convince me. I demand evidence if I am to believe that exotic or expensive interconnects and speaker cables are better--or even make an audible difference. As for going out and getting the evidence, well, it's those who make the claims and/or make/sell the things who have the burden of proof, not me. If said information is not availble, then I see no reason to even consider purchasing.
If you want to rely on something less rigorous, that's fine with me
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Understood.I was about to say (again) that trying cables *may* show you that they exhibit audible differences and that you should check them out. However, you mentioned Shakti Stones and Intelligence Chips, to which I would add cable elevators and most of the rest of the expensive tweak regime. It has been suggested that I try those types of things and they seem just too far beyond the fringe for me to consider.
Perhaps the difference between you and I is only a matter of degree. You'll try something if there is evidence to support it, I'll try it if it doesn't sound too ridiculous. Perhaps we both have internal "BS Meters" and you just have yours set a few clicks further to the left. :)
I may try something if it's convenient and costs me nothing. On the other hand, unless I am willing to go to the trouble of doing a blind test, such trials would accomplish nothing for me or anyone else.You may be right that our BS meters are calibrated differently.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
If you deny them then there is really nothing more to discuss.
I can quite understand why you don't want to. I have shown that we do not in fact hold the negative universal propositions you have proposed, and since we do not hold them, there is no need for us to defend them.I have also pointed out that it is more difficult to prove a negative than to prove a positive. I gave an example where a finite search could indeed prove a negative, but a positive could be more easily established. However, one cannot absolutely prove the null hypothesis with statistics; and indeed, positive statistical results are not absolute proof, either, just probabilities.
So, you are not only demanding that we prove the null hypothesis, but you demand we do so when we do not in fact assert it!
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
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 ]
