In Reply to: RE: Interesting Factoid posted by gusser on September 3, 2012 at 13:46:58:
>> One must not only be able to repeat the experiment results themselves many times, others must also be able to repeat the results by following the method the discovery person used, or another.If it can be proven that ONE PERSON can repeatedly hear the wire, then the claim is valid.
The fact that everybody can't hear it does not really matter.
As I have been arguing, deductive argument from covering law does not admit ONE single deviation.
The proper logical mode for this inquiry is induction. We do not have a covering law and it may well be impossible to derive one from any number of experiments.
I am inclined to argue that given that people have different ears, sensitivities and learning, that it would be pointless to try.
But regardless...
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT BILLIARD BALLS OR ELECTRONS, we are talking about people when we discuss audio. This is not and can never be "science." People do not interchange like 1 gram spheres of tungsten or whatever is in the physics experiment.
There is not much in the way of invariant law in the human sciences.
You are not looking deeply into the research design at hand and the profound implications that aesthetic perceptions are involved.
You are flying on Sophomore physical science class auto-pilot. This is not a physics lab experiment and cannot be made into one.
------------------------------
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent -- Wittgenstein
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
Edits: 09/03/12
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Interesting Factoid - Joe Roberts 14:02:40 09/03/12 (13)
- RE: Interesting Factoid - gusser 15:15:35 09/03/12 (12)
- RE: Interesting Factoid - Joe Roberts 17:24:23 09/03/12 (7)
- Skin effect! - gusser 11:35:32 09/04/12 (1)
- RE: Skin effect! - Joe Roberts 12:24:02 09/04/12 (0)
- RE: Interesting Factoid - cpotl 17:50:34 09/03/12 (4)
- RE: Interesting Factoid - Joe Roberts 18:27:56 09/03/12 (3)
- Addendum - Joe Roberts 18:50:47 09/03/12 (2)
- RE: Addendum - cpotl 19:34:31 09/03/12 (1)
- RE: Addendum - Stephen R 05:33:11 09/04/12 (0)
- RE: Interesting Factoid - cpotl 16:41:33 09/03/12 (3)
- RE: Interesting Factoid - Joe Roberts 20:13:10 09/03/12 (2)
- RE: Interesting Factoid - cpotl 23:47:36 09/03/12 (1)
- RE: Interesting Factoid - Joe Roberts 00:53:22 09/04/12 (0)