doctor_big wrote: > Further, you (and this could be the royal -you-) harp on about > established science, as if you're a -scientist!-
Because some of us are. Even more of us are engineers. Engineering is applied science - that is what audio is. > But you take this one little corner - ABX etc - and trot it out as if > it's the final, proven, de facto physical law that proves - -proves- I > say - that there is no difference between a 90's era CD player and state > of the art digital from the present day (or any other such -no > difference- mantra - take your pick). A real scientist - someone who's > actually interested in getting to the truth rather than furthering an > agenda - would look at the situation and say "well, they swear that > they're hearing a difference, and ABX doesn't reveal it. Let's try > something else." But that is exactly what "subjectivists" seem to miss - we have done exactly that. There are pretty well understood and verified scientific explanations as to why people hear a difference, but the science is perceptional science and psychology. > But you blather on about pseudoscience all the while ignoring true > scientific method. "The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[8] Experiments can take place in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars, and so on." So what specific parts are we ignoring? "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103950 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
