rgro wrote: > But the notion that, because you don't expect something to elicit a > change---good or bad, you refuse to try it, runs contrary to scientific > inquiry. I'm not a scientist, but I like to think that I know a thing or two about the process and standards of science, so here goes:
Some homeopaths seem to demand that genuine medicine researchers spend all their time trying to support the homeopaths claims about homeopathy. But the vast majority of medicine researchers are not interested in doing that, because they feel homeopathy has had its chance, and failed, and they've got better things to spend their time on. Is it reasonable to say that this means that the vast majority of medicine researchers are being unscientific? I don't think so. Scientific inquiry doesn't require you to follow all leads. Only those who seem worthwhile. What seems worthwhile to me may not seem worthwhile to you, and vice versa. But if *you* think it is worthwhile, then it's up to *you* to come up with some objective studies that can convince *me* to use *my* time to confirm or refute your findings. Unsubstantiated claims like "this quantum pebble placed on my speakers magically made the sound 1000 times better" are simply not convincing. (I won't go into details about the reasons why it is not convincing, that is, unless you insist.) Not being convinced by specious claims is simply not unscientific, and I think claiming the opposite represents a straw man version of the standards of science. rgro wrote: > The audiophile/phool demanding that a :"scientific" double double blind > test be the gold standard of accepting as to whether a change is heard > and then refusing to conduct the same "scientific" test simply because > he/she doesn't *expect* anything to happen is, to put it mildy, just a > little inconsistent. Not unless a convincingly executed double blind tests says there is a difference. Then it would be inconcistent to refuse to (provisionally) accept the results without conducting your own double blind test of equal or better quality. But -if the original claim is not backed up by a double blind test to begin with, refusing to spend time on doing your own double blind test would not be inconcistent-. And if you think it is, you should probably read up on the concept of 'burden of proof' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
