Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: 21st Century Science

Posted by May Belt (M) on April 6, 2007 at 02:08:37

In Reply to: 21st Century Science posted by tomservo on April 5, 2007 at 17:56:59:

Quote from Tom Danley "21st Century Science" 5th April 2007.
>>> "The reason I posted the link to this site originally was because of what they represent and to provoke thinking. They have proven to scientific satisfaction, a number of things about "mind / matter" connections that had long been thought to be imaginary by "main stream science". <<<

It would be nice if such groups COULD provoke thinking - that is 'provoke thinking' in enough people to make a significant difference !!
We have also Bohm's book "Thought as a system" saying, in effect - "The whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process". Couple that with Rupert Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' concept.
Sheldrake is a biologist and obviously trained in conventional biological theories but he had to begin to 'think out of the box' to try to explain anomalies which he had observed in Nature. Where certain behavioural patterns could NOT be explained from within conventional theories but which can begin to be explained by the concept that "if something exists then it has a particular morphic resonance pattern"., "that the more things which are identical strengthen that particular morphic resonance pattern"., "that the things which are identical 'know the existence of each other' and can therefore 'tap into' any acquired knowledge/experience/behaviour'.

Bohm, I think, (I am putting this simplistically) sees the whole universe as a giant holograph with everything 'linked' within it. Again, extremely simplistically, I have had to understand Bohm and Sheldrake in my own way - by visualising a huge vegetable soup - with the peas 'knowing the existence of each other', the carrots 'knowing the existence of each other' and so on with us (human beings) also within that huge soup !!!

>>> "Real fans of hifi (maximizing the listening experience) should not be afraid of exploring where "wishful thinking" and "actually hearing it" diverge, sometimes only observable when there is a lack of prior knowledge." <<<

How I wish people (real fans of hifi) WOULD EXPLORE !!! In an extensive discussion I was involved with in the Stereophile Chat Forum (a link to that can be accessed via an article by me - "Myth, Mirth or Magic?" (just published in Positive Feedback Online), I tried to make people aware that their belief in the 'peer group' review process of verifying discoveries was extremely naive. I used the particular story of our work and involvement in attempting to improve the sound of hearing aids. Even after all my 52 years of experience of engineer's and scientist's attitudes I was still amazed (and dismayed) at the attitude(s) I met on this Stereophile discussion forum. I became cross with someone who accused me of being disparaging to the medical profession because 'I should be aware that they are extremely dedicated people', so I suggested that if HE was so convinced that the people he knew of who were involved in work on hearing aids were so dedicated, then why didn't HE tell them of experiments they could carry out on hearing aid batteries for themselves ?
I give below the exchange I had with him !!!!!!

************************
Quote from Scooter123 15/11/06

I suspect that treatment involved coloring the batteries with specially "blessed" pens, putting a picture of the battery in the freezer, or something similar.

May, the simple fact is that J. Gordon holt's article had absolutely nothing to do with the hearing aid industries lack of interest in your "treatments". These people are hard nosed SCIENTISTS and your "treatments" have absolutely no foundation in Science. That's why they won't explore your treatments, you have no scientific evidence, or theory, to show HOW your treatments work. To be blunt, they have enough to do within the framework of real science that they won't even consider wasting any time on mysticism.

BTW, no I won't approach anyone in the hearing aid industry about experimenting with your treatments. The simple fact is that I am an Applied Scientist and do not believe that your treatments work. Provide some proof within the framework of an accepted field of Science (chemistry, physics, or even quantum mechanics) and perhaps then I will listen.

My Reply To Scooter123.

As Clark Johnsen said earlier "Again - with the Price !!!"
And, I also say "Again - another knee-jerk reaction - with presumptions." Presumptions that, with any of our treatments, there MUST BE something weird and wonderful involved i.e "blessed pens" (at a price) etc.
Don't Professors rap students knuckles anymore when the students make presumptions without knowing the facts ?
The facts are that the technique described is FREE, FREE, ABSOLUTELY FREE.

Please can people observe where some of the blockages to progress are ?
If some of you, members of the audio fraternity, are prepared to do some experiments for yourself, to try things without pre judging, what chance is there of progress if a self professed Applied Scientist declares that NO, he is not going to waste time on what he describes as mysticism ?'

And, Scooter123, do you REALLY believe that J. Gordon Holt's article had no influence whatsoever ? On anyone ? That it was no discouragement whatsoever to some people who might have been prepared to go further ? That, because of an article such as that, some people kept quiet for fear of being scorned ?

If the researchers into hearing aids are like Scooter123 - what he calls 'hard nosed scientists' - and would not be prepared to do experiments, then how can progress be made ? If the researchers WERE prepared to do some experiments such as freezing the batteries, and they discovered that YES, that technique can give improvements i.e make the sound of the hearing aid less harsh, aggressive, and shouty - then they MIGHT then be prepared to try the freezing technique on the ACTUAL hearing aid !!! WOW - just imagine - that technique might even give further improvements !!

I would never recommend that members of the public should themselves freeze the actual hearing aids - they are too precious and too expensive for people to attempt such things themselves - but surely the PROFESSIONALS - the researchers into hearing aids should be seriously investigating this aspect to see what is effective and what can be done in that area ?

But if Scooter123 as a professed 'Applied Scientist' is representative of the 'hard nosed scientists' working on hearing aids, then I am presuming that NOTHING will be done !! Yet again !!

For people interested in the history of scientific discoveries, then study this episode carefully. You are right in the middle of such a period of history !!

My reply :-
Quote from Scooter123.
"Provide some proof within the framework of an accepted field of Science (chemistry, physics, or even quantum mechanics) and perhaps then I will listen."

What Scooter is suggesting is "Present us with all your results, all your research, all your proof - and we will then deign to have a look - until then - keep quiet - don't bother us with concepts, anecdotal examples. We (the scientists) do not want to know until YOU have done all the research you are asking US to do !!

We would all still be in the dark ages if the early pioneers had met that attitude from every one of their contemporaries !!

One of my favourite occurrences from history is what I refer to as the "Dr Hughes Bennett Syndrome" named after the doctor in the Joseph Lister story who said "Where are the germs? Show them to us and we will believe. Has anybody seen these germs ?"

And, Scooter, I would suggest you read my reply to Buddha where I give details of some people's experiences using the freezing/slow defrost technique over a period of 20 years. And, these examples are only the ones I know of. There may easily be many more. How many results, how many anecdotal examples are required before the 'hard nosed scientists' involved in researching into hearing aids are prepared to have a look ?

And, Scooter123, just who IS the onus on to investigate ? I personally would have thought the researchers working on hearing aids !!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt.

Quote from 4season 15/11/06

I evaluate audio faith healing..err, esoteric tweaks and political promises in much the same way: I watch where the money is going.

"Treated" hearing aid batteries could've been a particularly fine, high-margin revenue stream, because unlike some other tweaks, they need frequent replacement!

My reply.
Again, with the price !! Again with the mockery. "Audio faith healing to improve the sound of hearing aids OR a simple freezing/slow defrost technique which is FREE "
Which is it 4 season ?
Regards,
May Belt.
****************************

I repeat the sentence I said in the Stereophile Chat Forum.

"For people interested in the history of scientific discoveries, then study this episode carefully. You are right in the middle of such a period in the history of scientific discoveries !!"
Regards,
May Belt.

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

Sonic Craft

---

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

---

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

---