|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.196
In Reply to: You ask... posted by Wellfed on May 17, 2007 at 00:09:06:
>>Here is a very simple question for you May. Do you believe that when one listend to a Belt tweek and percieves a difference in sound that it *must* be the result of a physical change in the physical sound or do you believe that it *may* be a change in the listeners state of mind?
She answers your question pretty directly IME when she saysWhen I say that our concept (based on our past 25 years of research which came after the previous 30 years of manufacturing audio equipment completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories) is that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on us (human beings) which, in turn, is having a physical effect on the electro-chemical information travelling through the hearing mechanism, I am NOT saying that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on the (ACOUSTIC) sound and that our tweaks alter that (acoustic) sound - which is your interpretation !! My use of the phrase 'affecting the sound' means affecting the information which travels through the hearing mechanism to the working memory. And my use of the description 'improving the sound' means allowing more of this information to be resolved by the working memory so that it can do a better job of presenting a better 'sound picture' to the brain.
Your response then is to go all obnoxious and insulting on her. Exhibit A
Some select examples
And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory.<<
Well if a statement of fact is an insult thenwhat does that tell you?
>>Where is your proof, not to mention your manners?<<
The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks.
>>That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method.<<
WOW you think that is an insult? I don't know what to say. You must suffer a great deal when reading posts on a forum that is supposed to be oriented towards science and technology if the very fundimental rules of science offend you.
>>I suggest you study the concept of empirical observation if you really want to know what old fashioned science is all about.<<
I suggest you look up scientific method. You will find that there are a few steps that follow the observation stage. Their kind of important too.>>If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.
I would say that if something bothers YOU, then YOU should go out and do the work necessary to ease your distress. And I mean really.<<
I would say this response barely rises to the typical fifth grade level of "I know you are but what am I?" Bottom line is just as I stated. If the Belts want their tweeks to be respected on a scientific level then they must go through the rigors of the scientific method and do the proper testing and publishing of that research. They_Dont_Get_A_Fre_Pass.
Follow Ups:
Some select examplesAS: And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory.
AS: Well if a statement of fact is an insult thenwhat does that tell you?
WF: Facts are what YOU make them? Pretty hard to respond to anything specific under those circumstances.
WF: Where is your proof, not to mention your manners? < <
AS: The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks.
WF: Sure, ditch the subjective term meaningful and you've got a deal.
AS: That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method.
AS: WOW you think that is an insult? I don't know what to say. You must suffer a great deal when reading posts on a forum that is supposed to be oriented towards science and technology if the very fundimental rules of science offend you.
WF: You make the rules AND establish the facts? Well good for you. I put this stuff in the obnoxious classification, not the insult.
WF: I suggest you study the concept of empirical observation if you really want to know what old fashioned science is all about.
AS: I suggest you look up scientific method. You will find that there are a few steps that follow the observation stage. Their kind of important too.WF: And you know they're not being considered how exactly?
AS: If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.
WF: I would say that if something bothers YOU, then YOU should go out and do the work necessary to ease your distress. And I mean really.
AS: I would say this response barely rises to the typical fifth grade level of "I know you are but what am I?" Bottom line is just as I stated. If the Belts want their tweeks to be respected on a scientific level then they must go through the rigors of the scientific method and do the proper testing and publishing of that research. They_Dont_Get_A_Fre_Pass.
WF: Unlike you, I'm not so presumptuous. Don't worry, you'll learn about presumption when you get to the 5th grade.
AS: And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory.AS: Well if a statement of fact is an insult thenwhat does that tell you?
WF: Facts are what YOU make them?
No. But if I am mistaken then May is free to correct me. She has made some sort of reference to a DBT of a treated hearing aide. I have since asked her for some details. The devil often resides there. If She provides a reasonable account or better yet a varifiable account then I will stand corrected. 25 years and one DBT that did not involve any high end audio equipment. I wait with much anticipation for her account of this DBT.
WF: Pretty hard to respond to anything specific under those circumstances.
Actually it shouldn't be hard at all for May to correct any mistakes in fact on my part.
WF: Where is your proof, not to mention your manners? < <
My proof lies in May's many posts. She is involved in this thread. If I am wrong and they do actually do tests for bias effects and have done some real scientific investigation into their "concept" that Belt tweeks work via some biological mechanism she is free to set the record straight and give us a detailed acount. If I am wrong I will happily take it all back. But if I am worng it strikes me as really odd that May would spend all this time withholding all this information.
AS: The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks.
WF: Sure, ditch the subjective term meaningful and you've got a deal.
AS: That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method.
AS: WOW you think that is an insult? I don't know what to say. You must suffer a great deal when reading posts on a forum that is supposed to be oriented towards science and technology if the very fundimental rules of science offend you.
WF: You make the rules AND establish the facts? Well good for you. I put this stuff in the obnoxious classification, not the insult.
Talk about manners. I guess that is aone way street eh? No, I don't make the rules. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the scientific method? I didn't invent it. Look it up some time.
WF: I suggest you study the concept of empirical observation if you really want to know what old fashioned science is all about.
AS: I suggest you look up scientific method. You will find that there are a few steps that follow the observation stage. Their kind of important too.WF: And you know they're not being considered how exactly?
By a complete lack of any reports on them. Why on earth if May is doing regular tests for bias effects and doing meaningful scientific research into her assertions of a biological mechanism as an explination for Belt tweeks would she not report that here and now?
AS: If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.WF: I would say that if something bothers YOU, then YOU should go out and do the work necessary to ease your distress. And I mean really.
AS: I would say this response barely rises to the typical fifth grade level of "I know you are but what am I?" Bottom line is just as I stated. If the Belts want their tweeks to be respected on a scientific level then they must go through the rigors of the scientific method and do the proper testing and publishing of that research. They_Dont_Get_A_Fre_Pass.
WF: Unlike you, I'm not so presumptuous. Don't worry, you'll learn about presumption when you get to the 5th grade.
Another "I know you are but what am I" response. You could at least try to be witty.
> > WF: Sure, ditch the subjective term meaningful and you've got a deal. < <
Interesting. As if "meaningful" were a "subjective" term when it comes to scientific evaluation of evidence, protocols and test results. Let me take the "subjectivism" out of it since the term "meaningful" doesn't seem to have any specific meaning to you in this context. May is constantly comparing her "concept" with the work of real science. So lets just set the standard right there. I will bet that the Belts have done no research that rises to the level of rigor or meets the protocols that science demands of all research and that has been met by all the science she has compared her "concepts" to. Is that clear? Does that take the subjectivity out of my bet well enough for you? All I suggest in my claims that the Belts have failed to properly investigate their assertions is that her assertions have not been put through the same rigors of the scientific method as have those scientifc discoveries she keeps alluding to. Is that not fair? Would you accept that her analogies should exempt from the rules of double standards? Let me know. My bet stands. Thousand bucks says her "concepts" haven't stood up to the scientific scrutiny of any of the scientific discoveries she has likened to Belt tweeks.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: