|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Well, we'll have to disagree on this one... posted by real_jj on June 22, 2006 at 16:16:10:
"Things like "fraud", "jj is no scientist", etc, are very serious accusations worth a minus-million on the karma scale when they are false."I would say that such allegations are very serious if they come from someone with credibility. If they come from someone lacking in credibility, ignoring such statements may be the most productive approach. Let the readers of the group decide who is credible and who is not, based on the support each person provides for their position.
"I do see over the top objectivist behaviors"
Yes. And I do not claim to be innocent in this area.
"...but I see really nothing like the lynch mob of [deleted]"
Well, I think "lynch mob" is way too strong a term. Some of the people you mention I find humorous and enjoyable even though I strongly disagree with their views.
"...who leap in with the most atrocious claims, misconstructions, negligence and/or deceptions in support of their unsupported claims."
In cases such as "The sampling theorem doesn't work" or "The sampling theorem assumes...", I must say this kind of stuff pisses me off. And this is not because it challenges established knowledge (which can be verified by anyone who is not too lazy to do so), but because the arguments which attempt to support such views inevitably contain logical fallacies and/or misunderstandings of the mathematics involved. Such things as "what does it mean for a signal to be bandlimited" and how that relates to known Fourier transform relationships seems to be a huge source of misunderstanding and misinformation. Some of the posters in the "audio resolution" thread over in General were in my view typical examples of this. I see a combination of ignorance, together with a proactive and aggressive campaign of misinformation in that thread. It's a very sad state of affairs.
"It is patently clear to me that getting to the bottom of the problem is not the primary motivation of discussions here..."
Yeah. With the exception of purely technical discussions between one engineer and another, I find many of the threads take this form:
1) Poster starts with an assertion having no basis in fact.
2) Poster assumes that assertion is true. Poster does not change that assumption regardless of how much evidence to the contrary is provided.
3) Poster assumes the existing theory is inadequate to describe the "phenomenon" (which has no basis in fact in the first place).
4) Poster characterizes those who dismiss non-fact-based "observation" as closed-minded and dogmatic....and then it goes downhill from there. As individuals, I think there is only a limited amount that can really be done. I think it's a more global problem that will only go away when the boomer generation that sustains this position retires to the great beyond.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Well, we'll have to disagree on this one... - andy_c 22:20:16 06/22/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
