Audio Science Review

[MLXXX]

3 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

me and a bunch of mates discovered this tweak that reverses gravity. 

That's not possible.

 

Ah, I guess the burden of proof is on me now... 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

me and a bunch of mates discovered this tweak that reverses gravity. 

magnetism has already been discovered

 

a physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge, which can result in  repulsive forces between objects and oppose gravity.

[MLXXX]

Does this thread have anywhere to go now? Or are we all "done" [to use an Americanism we have absorbed into Australian speech]?

[sir sanders zingmore]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

magnetism has already been discovered

 

a physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge, which can result in  repulsive forces between objects and oppose gravity.

you need to prove that it wasn't gravity being reversed 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

you need to prove that it wasn't gravity being reversed 

The opposing force of magnetism  was the real phenomenon based on the laws of physics. Your  interpretation of gravity reversal merely...an illusion

Edited August 7, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Does this thread have anywhere to go now? Or are we all "done" [to use an Americanism we have absorbed into Australian speech]?

It never did but at least it is getting funnier !

[LHC]

20 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

me and a bunch of mates discovered this tweak that reverses gravity. 

I think you have competition. These folks claim they have a 20 years head start to everyone else  (Disclaimer: I do not endorse or defend the overall veracity of the video below!)

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

11 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The opposing force of magnetism  was the real phenomenon based on the laws of physics. Your  interpretation of gravity reversal merely...an illusion

You magnetists think that your special force explains everything!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

@Sir Sanders Zingmore I get your point but we are not talking "Russell's teapot" here, where one or few are making crazy unfalsifiable claims. Many people hear differences in say cables and while it seems weird and unexplainable to some , so too did many things in history. Why do others feel the need to police what can or can't be experienced, let alone judge them. If you have proof sure, offer it.

[Guest Muon N']

Meh, I'm not fussed on anyone providing proof.

 

After all, proof or no proof..... my life and the greater world will be unchanged regardless of the outcome.

[MLXXX]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Many people hear differences in say cables and while it seems weird and unexplainable to some , so too did many things in history. Why do others feel the need to police what can or can't be experienced, let alone judge them. If you have proof sure, offer it.

Probably for the same reason that people spend time trying to refute conspiracy theories.  They feel that the preponderance of evidence when assessed carefully and dispassionately leads to the conclusion that the conspiracy theory is the far less likely explanation.

 

There is an implicit assumption that the desirable state for human-kind is to understand and perceive the world as it most likely is, rather than as it most likely is not.  And thus a desire to help others in their path towards understanding and perceiving the world.

 

SciManDan is the internet moniker of a fellow who exemplifies this personality type. Most of the conspiracy theories he seeks to refute in his YouTube videos relate to astronomy, e.g that the 1969 moon landing by American astronauts was faked.*

 

I hope this brief explanation may possibly help with an appreciation of why it is that some people take it upon themselves to do such things as encouraging audiophiles who think they hear a difference with cables, to do some simple cable swapping and unsighted listening!

 

Cheers,

MLXXX

 

* Ultimately it is not possible to "prove" that the 1969 moon landing was not faked.  However it is possible to argue persuasively that it is more plausible that it occurred, than that it was filmed on earth as part of a conspiracy. It has been reported that around 5 or 6% of people in the USA when polled say they believe the moon landings were faked; and that a similar percentage say they are undecided about whether the moon landings were faked.

Edited August 7, 2019 by MLXXX

[sir sanders zingmore]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

@Sir Sanders Zingmore I get your point but we are not talking "Russell's teapot" here, where one or few are making crazy unfalsifiable claims. Many people hear differences in say cables and while it seems weird and unexplainable to some , so too did many things in history. Why do others feel the need to police what can or can't be experienced, let alone judge them. If you have proof sure, offer it.

So the burden of proof is on the person saying it’s not true unless it’s a “crazy” claim?

I think I get it now ....

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

So the burden of proof is on the person saying it’s not true unless it’s a “crazy” claim?

The experience of hearing a difference is an observation and a great many seem to share the sort of observations we are talking about. The claim is that made by others insisting that person cannot hear a difference. IMO the claimants often invoke science up to the point that it no longer suits them. Arguably just as incongruous is that the challengers get ruffled when counter claims are volleyed back at them.  

 

More importantly, those observing this sensory experience in the pursuit of enjoying their music and (what was once) a fun hobby, do not want to be challenged by someone else’s belief system nor are they interested in proving their belief system. Such notions are thrust upon them. They particularly get perplexed that the challengers who extol such noble motivations as saving them from themselves seem to use ridicule and sarcasm as their method.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, MLXXX said:

Probably for the same reason that people spend time trying to refute conspiracy theories.  They feel that the preponderance of evidence when assessed carefully and dispassionately leads to the conclusion that the conspiracy theory is the far less likely explanation.

 

There is an implicit assumption that the desirable state for human-kind is to understand and perceive the world as it most likely is, rather than as it most likely is not.  And thus a desire to help others in their path towards understanding and perceiving the world.

 

SciManDan is the internet moniker of a fellow who exemplifies this personality type. Most of the conspiracy theories he seeks to refute in his YouTube videos relate to astronomy, e.g that the 1969 moon landing by American astronauts was faked.*

 

I hope this brief explanation may possibly help with an appreciation of why it is that some people take it upon themselves to do such things as encouraging audiophiles who think they hear a difference with cables, to do some simple cable swapping and unsighted listening!

 

Cheers,

MLXXX

 

* Ultimately it is not possible to "prove" that the 1969 moon landing was not faked.  However it is possible to argue persuasively that it is more plausible that it occurred, than that it was filmed on earth as part of a conspiracy. It has been reported that around 5 or 6% of people in the USA when polled say they believe the moon landings were faked; and that a similar percentage say they are undecided about whether the moon landings were faked.

I am not doubting your earnestness or your conviction just your assumptions and methods. May I gently remind you that you previously used words like dysfunctional human behaviour in one of your characterizations.

[sir sanders zingmore]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The experience of hearing a difference is an observation and a great many seem to share the sort of observations we are talking about. The claim is that made by others insisting that person cannot hear a difference. IMO the claimants often invoke science up to the point that it no longer suits them. Arguably just as incongruous is that the challengers get ruffled when counter claims are volleyed back at them.  

 

More importantly, those observing this sensory experience in the pursuit of enjoying their music and (what was once) a fun hobby, do not want to be challenged by someone else’s belief system nor are they interested in proving their belief system. Such notions are thrust upon them. They particularly get perplexed that the challengers who extol such noble motivations as saving them from themselves seem to use ridicule and sarcasm as their method.

I recently realised the earth is flat. 

 

[Ittaku]

I'm sorry but burden of proof falls entirely on someone making a claim against established science. Same goes for hi-fi.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I recently realised the earth is flat. 

 

Sarcasm and i suggest veiled ridicule.

[sir sanders zingmore]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Sarcasm and i suggest veiled ridicule.

No. 

Just pointing to the logical conclusion of your stance. 

 

Green pens on cds

quantum dots 

peter belt 

 

occam is rolling in his grave 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Ittaku said:

I'm sorry but burden of proof falls entirely on someone making a claim against established science. Same goes for hi-fi.

An observation is the cornerstone of established science and it is how science progresses through hypothesis formulation and testing. If you wish you can form a hypothesis and test it. Most music enjoyers just want to listen to music.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

No. 

Just pointing to the logical conclusion of your stance. 

 

Green pens on cds

quantum dots 

peter belt 

 

occam is rolling in his grave 

Ockham's razor is well served by the simple explanation that people observing a sensation are having a sensation.

I doubt that William of Ockham is rolling over in his grave

[Ittaku]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

An observation is the cornerstone of established science and it is how science progresses through hypothesis formulation and testing.

That's correct, and using your sophistry in the same way, if I made an observation in my own field of science the burden of proof fell squarely on me to prove it, and not the rest of my profession to disprove it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Ittaku said:

That's correct, and using your sophistry in the same way, if I made an observation in my own field of science the burden of proof fell squarely on me to prove it, and not the rest of my profession to disprove it.

You see how quickly things can become unpleasant with words like sophistry implying intention to deceive.

 

I suggest that an observation can lead to hypothesis and testing that hypothesis will depend on whether or not you are interested.

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

An observation is the cornerstone of established science and it is how science progresses through hypothesis formulation and testing. If you wish you can form a hypothesis and test it. Most music enjoyers just want to listen to music.

The reasons behind the observation that the earth is flat are well understood. 

Science is held back by having to waste energy on explaining observations that already have a well understood explanation. 

[frednork]

3 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

So the burden of proof is on the person saying it’s not true unless it’s a “crazy” claim?

I think I get it now ....

How about an approach that acknowledges (especially in matters of "just noticeable difference" that it is true for them (after all these pages I think we have gotten to that point whether bias is involved or not) and it may or may not be for you and that may vary depending on whether DBT is done or not.  Much more that that  is very difficult to prove.

 

If you can accept it is true for them you can also accept that belittling, acting superior, playing the audiophool card etc are weak minded arguments of the type used by bullies and politicians and not the methods of someone who is truly interested in a discussion and anybody learning anything.

 

If you see yourself as a "wise elder" that needs to teach the younguns how to suck eggs then act like a wise elder, not an angry teen.

 

The other thing that has been acknowledged is that changing someones mind here with this discussion is unlikely so please lower your expectations.

 

And what harm is it doing to anyone even if they are wrong. Surely there are better causes like stopping the promotion of gambling to youths as a sport which can end in ruined lives.  The epitaphs are starkly different. "He saved countless lives from ruin due to shutting down online gambling" or "he was a fierce online warrior that changed no ones mind regarding dubious improvements in stereo reproduction".

 

Friendly jibes dont work well online and are easily misinterpreted by those we have not met in person so we need to be a bit more transparent and less familiar.  I find this easy to forget.

 

I suspect for most here regardless of their online position have some level of doubt regarding their current thinking which is good as it allows things to change if they have to without destroying concrete beliefs.

 

The reality is that ideas change and the idea of "just noticeable difference" becomes "difference" with some things over time.

[frednork]

@Sir Sanders Zingmore, to clarify, the above is not targeted at you and apologies if it seemed to be.