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: Two small points

Posted by Phil Tower (A) on December 9, 2003 at 09:36:36

In Reply to: Two small points posted by Commuteman on December 8, 2003 at 16:12:15:

"You're a smart guy, as far as I can tell, but the dysfunctional way you engage in discussion makes real dialogue impossible."

This kind of character assassination is typical of the Curl/Risch/Hansen gang of thugs. If one responds to Steve with facts, logic and reason he will respond in kind. If one responds to Steve with character assassination, questioning his "education" or other forms of obfuscation and diversion, he is unparalleled in making the offender appear to be the clown that he is.

"Bruno's tests are being used to serve an agenda here, and it ain't getting at the truth. Just my opinion, of course."

At least you qualified this statement as an opinion. Unfortunately, in my book that just doesn't get it. You have absolutely no facts that you can point to that suggests Steve has any agenda other than getting to the facts. If you cannot distinguish between the careful, scientific approach Steve is attempting to take with regard to this matter, and the anit-intellectual, unscientific and abusive tactics Curl has been engaging in (at least until he agreed to test the wires Steve wanted to send out to both he and Bruno) then I doubt there is anything I or anyone else could say to alter your opinion.

However, the expression of that opinion is nothing more than the continued propagation of the BIG LIE. At first the tactic employed to avoid dealing with facts and reason in an objective, scientific manner was to attack Steve's education. When that failed he was banned. Now the current tactic is to accuse him of dysfunctional behavior and the like.

But in the end truth is the truth. The universe and the laws of nature care not one hoot what you, I, Steve or anyone else "believes". The universe is whatever it is independent of the particular dogma of any one of us inconsequential human beings, or of the entire lot of us. The best we can hope for is to deal with objective facts as best they can be determined and measured, and to apply the hard-earned tools of reason and scientific objectivity that came only from the blood and sweat of man that have been spilled and shed for thousands years as we attempted to crawl out of darkness and superstition into a world where we can communicate employing tools that are objective and common to all men who seek the truth.

Other than two years as an engineering student in college (before I fell asleep in one to many calculus classes and changed my major to history) and holding an Extra Class ham license (KY7A), I lack any real technical background or knowledge. But after 30 years as a pure subjectivist in my home audio pursuits, and having achieved a level of performance in my system that amazes me every time I sit down to listen, I became bored with the subjectivist discussions on the web and sought to learn more about the technical underpinnings of my hobby.

I was shocked when I started seeing the incredible level of junk science, dogma and superstition that permeates the high end. I may not be able to keep up with the more involved technical discussions, but I can easily discern legitimate technical arguments from obfuscation and all the other techniques that are employed on the web to cover up the truth and attempt to discredit those who persist in the pursuit of that truth.

People like Steve and jneutron are breathes of fresh air in high end discussions that more often than not seem like a meeting of the flat earth society than a gathering of technically knowledgeable people who share a common desire to seek the truth wherever that search may lead.

I have posted the following Rules for Critical Thinking many times before, but I am going to post them again and then ask you a few simple questions, which of course you have the power to completely ignore:

“TOOLS FOR CRITICAL THINKING

Distinguish facts from inferences. Facts are observed and are not contingent on belief systems, biases, or preferences. Under ideal circumstances, facts can be verified. Treat skeptically “facts” that can’t be verified.

Encourage debate on the evidence by people who know the evidence.

Watch out for illogic. Be familiar enough with logical fallacies that you can recognize them when you encounter them. Even better, be familiar enough with them that you recognize them when you commit them.

Explore alternative explanations. The most obvious explanation is not always the best, and may often be wrong.

Beware of majority rule. Facts are not determined by majority vote.

Recognize that a hypothesis—even yours—is always a tentative explanation that ties facts together. Any fact that is inconsistent with the hypothesis destroys the hypothesis.

When possible, quantify hypotheses. The fuzzier the hypothesis, the easier it is to fit the facts into the hypotheses.

If an argument is based on a chain of logic, every link of the chain must be supported by facts, and every link must be logical.

Ask if the hypothesis can be falsified under any possible circumstances. If it cannot possibly be falsified, it is not a hypothesis that can be tested and is therefore within the realm of faith. Attempting to logically argue points of faith is self-contradictory.

Use Occam’s Razor, the principle that if two hypotheses explain the data equally well, it is better to choose the simpler hypothesis.

EXAMPLES OF LOGICAL FALLACIES

ad hominem – “to the man” – attacking the person instead of the argument

appeal to ignorance – the claim that what has not been proved false must be true

argument from adverse consequences – an argument based on predicted undesired outcomes

argument from authority – an argument based on the stature of the arguer or a supporter of the position

begging the question – basing a conclusion on a proposition that is as much in need of proof as the conclusion

cause - effect confusion – confusing the result with its cause

correlation - causation confusion – an argument that because two sets of data correlate, one causes the other

false analogy – ignoring significant differences in similar objects or events

false dichotomy – rejecting intermediate alternatives

hasty generalization – basing a conclusion on a sample that is too small

inconsistency – accepting contradictory propositions

non sequitur – “it does not follow” – an argument in which the conclusion does not follow the premise

observational selection – choosing only the data that fit the proposition

post hoc ergo propter hoc – “It happened after, so it was caused by.” Confuses sequence with causation

slippery slope – an argument that one thing will lead to another, and since the final outcome would be bad, the initial choice is bad

special pleading – the claim that special insight or understanding are needed or are impossible but would be required

straw man – an argument that oversimplifies or misstates an argument to make it easier to attack

weasel words – the use of ambiguous or imprecise language to support or counter an argument. Euphemisms and politically-correct speech may fit within this category.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~jimkutz/sss/logicfal/index.htm

Sagan, C. (1996) The Demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine.”

My questions are:

1. Do you agree the “Tools” are a good set of rules for ensuring compliance with the scientific method?

2. If yes, can you honestly say that Steve does not generally adhere to those principles?

3. Also, if yes, can you honestly say that Curl and Risch do generally adhere to those principles?

4. Can you honestly say that Steve often, or even occasionally, employs the logical fallacies?

5. Finally, can you honestly say that Curl and Risch do not often employ one or more of the logical fallacies?

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

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

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

---