|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
|
|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Comments on the comments :-) posted by CD on April 14, 2007 at 02:09:49:
"You’re mistaken in regarding a statement that something *has* an effect as equivalent to a statement that it doesn’t have that effect, at least in standard logic, and you are *certainly* mistaken in regarding them as equivalent from the point of view of science, since the whole point of scientific method is to subject claims to rigorous tests, there being an infinite supply of bullshit and only, from the standpoint of science, contingent truths. This is a routine confusion on this board: people asked how they know A has effect B simply repeat their assertion and retort “prove it doesn’t.†Anyone who argues in that way does not understand where scientific knowledge comes from."I didn't claim that "a statement that something *has* an effect as equivalent to a statement that it doesn’t have that effect". What I said was that someone who made a claim that something did not work was making a claim, just as someone who made a claim that the thing worked was making a claim. I don't deny that those who introduce products have an onus to prove that the products work, something that isn't done in many cases with tweaks. What I was pointing out was that anyone who wants to claim that the product doesn't work should be equally capable and willing to demonstrate their case, and pointing to the lack of an acceptable scientific explanation for the product does not constitute proof that it does not work.
People choose what claims they want to make. They don't evade their obligation to support the veracity of their claim by choosing to make a claim that something doesn't work rather than a claim that it does.
---------------------------------------------
"Re point 3, the point, if you follow the link, is not only does the thing measure like a .025 ohm inductively-wound power resistor but you crack open the casing and lo and behold it *is* a .025 inductively-wound power resistor."
That's not a proof that it is a .025 inductively-wound power resistor. It proves that it and the resistor measure identically on the tests conducted, and it shows that within the casing the Bybee resembles the resistor. I assume that the tests conducted were those appropriate for a resistor but the Bybee may do something that does not show on those tests. The fact that the two things look identical when the case is broken means that they don't when the case is unbroken, and perhaps the case has an effect.
I repeat my earlier statement: "Identical test results on the obvious parameters is strongly suggestive that the things are identical but it still falls short of proof. One would also question the reliability of the test methods and instruments before completely accepting the results if we were talking tests of a standard like that required for scientific or legal purposes." The tests you refer to are strongly suggestive and I'm not denying that but they are not conclusive.
My point about test methods and instruments is also relevant: what was the reliability and accuracy of the instruments, do they have the resolution required for the task for which they were being used, were they used appropriately? All of that sort of information is routinely supplied in reports of scientific studies in the peer reviewed journals, it is routinely given by reference to appropriate standards in any report supplied by a laboratory or other testing organisation, it is routinely elucidated in any legal proceeding. Do we have the level of confidence in how the tests that you refer to were conducted that we would have in tests conducted for scientific or legal purposes or is this the case of someone simply testing what they could test with whatever instruments they had on hand? If it is just a case of someone testing what they could with what they had, the results may be accurate but for any serious purpose involving proof of something, you would normally want to check those results on instruments known to be accurate and to ensure that there was nothing in the test procedure that may have reduced the accuracy of the results.
I'm not saying the results you quote are accurate or inaccurate. I'm stating 2 things. First, that identical results on a given set of tests does not prove that 2 things are identical on all parameters, just on those parameters tested. It is possible for other differences to exist though, as a matter of fact, that possibility may be very low. Second, that tests intended to establish proof of something come with associated information intended to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of the test process.
I repeat that the results you refer to are stronly suggestive, but not conclusive.
----------------------------------------------
"On your final paragraph, Bybee defenders are slippery about what “works†means. I have a clear idea about the difference between a car that works and a car that doesn’t work, and I imagine my idea of that difference is pretty much the same as yours. I have a pretty good idea of *how* a car works, too, and I’m confident that there’s not a single detail of its working that I couldn’t figure out. Moreover the soundness of the engineering is *directly* connected to the working or not working of the car – it’s not as though they’re in two separate worlds."
The whole concept of "works" is slippery in a lot of tweak discussions. When the explanation/theory given for the tweak is suspect, or even just wrong, lots of people who have not tried the tweak come out of the woodwork and say the tweak doesn't work because the explanation/theory does not hold up. Failure of the explanation/theory does not prove the device does not work, just that it can't work for the reasons given. It seems many here simply don't understand that.
Anything that does work in practice will definitely have an explanation/theory that will explain it but we don't always have the theory at the time. History proves that point,
If we take a look at the first implementation of anything—let's pick heavier than air powered flight—the 'proof' that mattered was not whether the Wright Brothers got the theory and engineering right, it was whether their plane was going to get off the ground and do what it was supposed to do. The real test of anything is the practical test, not whether or not the theory and engineering check out at the conceptual level.
I'm not saying that science is irrelevant. It's critical, and knowing the theory/engineering gets things built and it's damn hard to improve something if you don't know and understand how it works. We'd still be back in caves without audio components if it weren't for science, but the 'acid' test is always the practical test both for us as end-users and also for scientists when it comes to scientific proof. A prediction is made, a test is designed, and the crunch comes when the test delivers or fails to deliver the predicted result. The ability of something to do what it's supposed to do is as critical to scientific proof as it is to the end user buying a product.
---------------------------
"Medicine is a poor analogy to consumer electronics. Large parts of biological functioning are still understood only sketchily, and organisms are unbelievably complex systems. Consumer electronics by contrast are made by humans according to well-understood principles, and by comparison with a human body, they’re unbelievably simple! You can make a functioning amplifier in an afternoon out of a handful of parts; you can’t build a biological organism out of parts no matter how long you work at it."
I didn't introduce medicine as an analogy to consumer electronics. I stated that it was the area in which I was most familiar with placebo tests. I stand by my point that, on my understanding of the way in which tests using placebos are designed, I have yet to see a test of an audio product that conformed to that test design model.
I'm not denying the placebo effect, but the placebo effect I'm familiar with involves a person who is not and has not been exposed to the test condition demonstrating a response to a placebo which theoretically and practically should produce no response. In every audio test I've seen reported, every subject has been exposed to the test condition as well.
-------------------------------------------------------
"And re your last sentence, who are you speaking for? I don’t know if I qualify as an audiophile, but there are quite a few of us here who are genuinely interested in how and why things work, who have built things partly in order to learn, and who find the world enriched when we understand it better."
I'm interested in those things also, but see my first point above. As *USERS* of a product, our primary interest is whether or not it does what we want or expect. Sometimes we're only the user of a particular product and sometimes we're something more than that, with a genuine interest in how and why that product does what it does. None of us has that genuine interest in how and why the product works for absolutely every product that we use. As users we have an interest in whether or not every product we use is going to deliver the goods.
Even if we are interested in the how and why, I'd be prepared to bet that we would use a product that does what it is supposed to do even if we knew that we did not yet have a real understanding of how and why it worked. If it can be demonstrated in practice that something works, and works reliably, and it did something you wanted, why would you refuse to use it simply because you didn't understand how it works? I know nothing about how cars work, but I happily use mine to get from point A to point B.
I'm simply stating the fact that usefulness is the primary consideration for people when they use a product. No one is going to knowingly use something if they know it won't work or do the job the product is intended for, unless of course they have some totally different aim in mind and their use of the product is as a 'stage prop' for that other aim.
----------------------------------------------------
I don't think our respective positions are very far apart at all, and I'm definitely not trying to prove that Bybees work. I haven't tried them and I couldn't install them in my gear if I bought them because I don't know how to. I've never seen them used here in Australia, and while I do buy some things on-line from the US, I buy those things I know how to use. I got into this thread simply because I made some remarks about the reasoning implicit in the original post that started this thread. My interest here is in the logic and psychology that supports and motivates the extreme positions at both ends of the debate on a lot of audio issues, and I think that there's bad logic and psychology at both ends of the debate.
David Aiken
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Comments on the comments :-) - David Aiken 14:08:02 04/14/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
