In Reply to: "Proof" what ?????? posted by cheap-Jack on March 14, 2006 at 08:51:53:
My favorite books are Yost's book on the Physiology of Hearing, and Moore's book on the Psychology of Hearing.Reading the old Fletcher reprint from the ASA is also very interesting, although you need more math.
In short, you've missed in any number of ways.
1) yes, it is possible to test human perception. It's a pain in the rump, but yes, it is possible, and yes, people do it. There is not a little, but a LOT of understanding about how human hearing works.
2) the burden of proof - The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that is opposite the status quo. The claims made in the OP, if they are made as "facts" as opposed to anecdotal impressions, are quite opposite the status quo, and as such, need to be supported with proper testing, i.e. DBT's (or similar methods), controls (both for false discrimination and sensitivity), listening training with feedback, and a whole lot of other things.
3) In all of the research on human hearing, there is very little (read "no", but I almost never say "never") evidence for people with hugely better hearing discrimination in any fashion. There are one or two pathological exceptions, you really, really don't want to be one of those people, because it means you need to see a doctor, now. NOW. Your attack on the person's hearing is therefore quite insulting and uncalled for. The burden of proof is entirely, completely, and absolutely on the person here who is making the claim, not on the person who is asking for evidence or questioning the claim. That's how science works.
4) Science never, EVER offers "absolute proof". Science is always provisional, it always is subject to revision when real, confirmed, repeatable evidence comes along.There's more, but I'm tired of typing.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Um, excuse me, but you need to read up a bit - real_jj 15:30:04 03/17/06 (0)