|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.71.78.104
In Reply to: "Who's right, ahhh, the engineers of course. *They know it all.*" posted by clarkjohnsen on February 8, 2007 at 14:28:34:
We talked about this subject last week on our blog... with a slightly different take (and FYI, flames > dev/null. Sorry.):
Follow Ups:
> > It is easier to point out who is wrong> >Are you referring to: " Audiophile 101: The Science" as an example of something that is so very wrong?
I'm a physicist by training and you tell me I should know better? Better than what? Better than you, that's who! And I do. And I'm here to tell you that you're full of it.I don't have to listen to your miserable, self-righteous defense. Me and my buddies like Jim Austin, PhD, don't even have to listen to whatever, anything, because we received instruction in the rules of physics in college and university and by God! until some Einstein of Audio comes along to upset the applecart -- not gonna happen! -- the immutable laws of physics govern audio as they govern us all.
Give it up.
... not about what it means to be a scientist, not about the history of science, not about how ideas propogate and form theories that are later proved or disproved as science and knowledge advances, ......and not about how The more you know, The more you know you don't know.
If anyone else is reading this, don't be bamboozled. They don't teach diddly squat in school - they just teach you enough to get a job, which is where you finally START learning what is really going on.
And then you finally START learning that we know almost nothing - a few models here and there whose predictions appear to match experimental data, more or less. That's it.
This is what makes science so much fun - no one has yet figured this stuff out yet, and YOU could be the one. New models of how various things work are being proposed every day....
Sorry, but PhD's can only guide people by trying to explain the models of how things work that they learned while in school, which may or may not apply to the questions being debated [and in general they do not], and if they apply, they predict only what SHOULD happen as a result of an experiment, based on the model... not what WILL happen; just what the model predicts will happen.
:-)
But so far as I'm concerned you can type anything more you like, whether you think it obvious or not.
:-)
Mike, you are making sense. Watch out, or 'they' will go after you too!
we're closed minded?
Before I got addicted to computers, I was going to do my physics thesis on 'Chi', the force that numerous martial arts call upon to exert great force when needed. Not so much to figure out what it was but to try and prove its existance.There are lots of things experienced by lots of people that we understand hardly at all - things that could actually be measured if there was money in it.
> I was going to do my physics thesis on 'Chi', the force that numerous martial arts call upon to exert great force when needed. Not so much to figure out what it was but to try and prove its existance. <And were you successful? Unfortunately, it's been a mixed bag for me. I've never found one of those masters that upon summoning his Chi could not be moved by pushing, like I've read about and seen demos on tv. On the other hand, I have seen some demonstrations using strength that might be considered Chi.
... I had found a way to put my passion for computing to good use in the PC revolution. So much for physics. I love to do theoretical research, but it more or less requires that I be a professor, and at that time spending the rest of my life in school was not what I wanted to do.Perhaps Chi is one of those many things that is shy, and shrinks up when being measured.......?
But regarding Chi I am probably in the same place as you - and, although I *think* I feel something sometimes, it is not as substantive nor repeatable as, oh, my ability to hear differences in cables for example. :-)
...slow down to a crawl? If so... how do you measure those?While never particularly athletic in my life, a few years ago I found myself able to catch the stuff that I sometimes drop, and what I've noticed seems to be an expansion of time that allows me to do the swoop and catch in an orderly and effective manner.
I know the Russians have been working on this...
...that after 25+ years of studying martial arts, I have none... whatever it is!> it is not as substantive nor repeatable as, oh, my ability to hear differences in cables for example. :-) <
Step 1 observe what is going on, Step 2 hypothesize why and how. NOW on Step 3, many ic believers are simply repeating step 1 and 2. ON step 4 they are again repeating step 1 and 2. Prove me wrong. State the protocols used in step 3 and 4.
I tried to do an alternative test 'pro-bono' BUT...
A, an unbiased test requires unbiased testers completely free of audiophildom and without outside interference or micromanagement.We could not get to "B"
Step 3 fell on its face before it could begin.
No way would this be allowed to go down because the testing protocol would then be considered "suspect".
Care to give as colorful analogy??
A no modus operandi set of situations.
"A. an unbiased test requires unbiased testers completely free of audiophildom and without outside interference or micromanagement."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: