Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Re: More misunderstanding . . .

The problem is the end-user only needs to satisfy himself. He could voice his satisfaction. And anyone else can state that they either experience similar satisfaction or don't. Or kindly state agreement or disagreement from a scientific standpoint, if such information could prove valuable. No harm, no foul.

Yes, I completely agree with this. The standard to which an observation should be held depends on what the observation is being used for. If it's only for the end user, then there's no reason whatsoever to apply rigorous standards - unless the one making the claim asserts that claim as fact. Unfortunately, this sometimes happens, or sometimes people aren't clear - then there can be knee-jerk reactions in such a case.

But if one truly applied science, he would strive to improve upon the existing science to better-correlate with the subjective findings, not demand people's subjective findings to conform to static and archaic scientific doctrine.

Ahh, but now we are talking about something different from just the end user needing only to satisfy himself. We are now talking about modifying or reconciling the theory with observed data. If the data is bogus, then any attempt to do so will be futile. This means we now need to apply more stringent standards to the data. Most of the information that you call "subjective findings" on AA is assertions that have little or no factual basis. There's nothing wrong with that if the only purpose is for the end user to satisfy himself. But there is something wrong with it if the purpose is to reconcile or modify the theory to better match observed data.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • Re: More misunderstanding . . . - andy_c 15:06:29 05/21/06 (0)


You can not post to an archived thread.