bhaagensen wrote: > But I guess this is the point. There is some wiggly room in the > interface where science meets the real world. And I know, in the > sciences its usually controlled and abstracted using some kind of > error-model, but such error models can't be denied of being extremely > complicated if you dive into them, and in fact, not always that well > understood. And I guess in a way, its in this little space of > uncertanity that the audiophile story-tellers thrive. They can come up > with anything to fill the error-term and for the scientifically minded, > its very hard to provide rigid arguments against. We are basically > saying, look it holds 100% from here to the end of the universe - 1, and > then they quickly jump onto the last 1.
"In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant." (from 'wikipedia: pseudoscience' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Over-reliance_on_confirmation_rather_than_refutation)). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69882 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
