A list of Audiophile Fallacies

[antcollinet]

We have to remain open to all possibilities,

While, of course, not forgetting that most of those possibilities are so improbable - that they can be safely discounted in the absence of evidence.

eg, the teapot of Mr Russell

In other words, don't have a mind so open your brain falls out.

 

[Audionaut]

In other words, don't have a mind so open your brain falls out.

As a German scientist, perhaps this has already happened?
I think you know what I meant.

When dumbasses attack science, you know you have to be careful, because scientifically based arguments don't help against religious or pseudo-religious zealotry.
No matter at what level.

 

[antcollinet]

As a German scientist, perhaps this has already happened?
I think you know what I meant.

When dumbasses attack science, you know you have to be careful, because scientifically based arguments don't help against religious or pseudo-religious zealotry.
No matter at what level.

(my bold)

I thought i did, but now I am not so sure.

My point: We have to be careful of the statement that science has to consider all possibilities. Because if we were to take this literally we would have to include the supernatural and magic into those possibilities. This is not science.

When a property has been scientifically tested (eg what is the human hearing range, tested and found to be 20Hz to around 20kHz) we then don't need to consider that the previous tests were fallacious UNLESS there is specific valid evidence that they were (eg finding someone that has been scientifically demonstrated to hear 30kHz)

 

[Audionaut]

My point: We have to be careful of the statement that science has to consider all possibilities. Because if we were to take this literally we would have to include the supernatural and magic into those possibilities. This is not science.

Perhaps I take some things for granted, which is not the case. Maybe I can't find the right words in English.
Of course, I mean all the possibilities that the natural sciences keep open and make possible.

 

[ahofer]

Science is the opposite of dogmatism. We have to remain open to all possibilities, because otherwise we might close the very door that leads to a solution.

Which does not mean we dismiss the evidence to-date, or leap to believe improbable things asserted without evidence. See Ad Mysterium and Russell’s Teapot in the OP.

 

[ahofer]

My Groom of the Stool.

You?

As the OP, and presumably head pedant to our new critics, I just installed a Toto Washlet, and it is awesome.

 

[antcollinet]

As the OP, and presumably head pedant to our new critics, I just installed a Toto Washlet, and it is awesome.

 

[ahofer]

However I did not do a properly-controlled, blind comparison, so take my entirely subjective review as offered.

 

[antcollinet]

blind comparison

Could get messy

 

[HammersRocco]

As a German scientist, perhaps this has already happened?
I think you know what I meant.

When dumbasses attack science, you know you have to be careful, because scientifically based arguments don't help against religious or pseudo-religious zealotry.
No matter at what level.

I think that is true - in those kind of arguments, I go for the jugular... "I am sorry, but it's all imaginary", and never discuss further. It is sad, but over the years I have found that is the only way. Either you say nothing out of "respect" (in quotes because I cannot respect anyone arguing against scientific evidence using religious arguments) or just tell them they are deluded and stop the argument.

 

[Audionaut]

If the highest achievement at those universities is lace underwear and gay parade, I wouldn't just close them down - I'd burn them to the ground...

If you fulfil the admission requirements (do you?), it would probably be best to take a look at a university from the inside.

There you can study natural sciences such as physics and chemistry, but also humanities such as philosophy and history.
Underwear would probably be clothing technology, the universities for this are somewhat rare, but can certainly be found.

If you want to completely burn unwanted thoughts, it is advisable to start by burning books. This is a tried and tested method.

 

[Cbdb2]

My point: We have to be careful of the statement that science has to consider all possibilities. Because if we were to take this literally we would have to include the supernatural and magic into those possibilities. This is not science

Would we have relativity and quantum mechanics if we didnt consider all possibilities? The twin paradox and Schrodingers cat dont seem that far from supernatural.

 

[Cbdb2]

To submit to the depravity of those institutions instead of burning them?

So electrical engineering is depravity? Take your toxic shite elsewhere.

 

[MattHooper]

To submit to the depravity of those institutions instead of burning them?
You underestimate me.
And I wouldn't burn books (that's sooo 20th century), I would burn their writers...

Could you consider taking your creepy act somewhere else?

A lot of us come here for audio, not culture war stuff. There’s plenty of space on X if you want to go vent there.

 

[BDWoody]

Back on topic please.

 

[antcollinet]

relativity and quantum mechanics

Didn't come from dreaming random stuff up out of thin air. It came from following the physics. Probably more accurately : the maths.

Way beyond my pay-grade though.

 

[ahofer]

Didn't come from dreaming random stuff up out of thin air. It came from following the physics. Probably more accurately : the maths.

Way beyond my pay-grade though.

I’m sure that expounding on slam and pace is exactly the sort of thing that leads to the realization that light exhibits the behavior of both particles and waves.

 

[Cbdb2]

Didn't come from dreaming random stuff up out of thin air. It came from following the physics. Probably more accurately : the maths.

Way beyond my pay-grade though.

I was refering to this: "We have to be careful of the statement that science has to consider all possibilities."
Theoretical physics, the maths, arent always right (any tool can be used inccorectly), they have to be proven by experiment. And I believe that the examples I gave were rarely considered possibilities. Einstein could have looked at his relatavistic equations and tossed them, thinking it was impossible, he had to consider all possibilities. And at the same time he didnt believe in quantum physics.
So I believe science dose have to consider all possibilities, but there are many that are easy to rule out.

 

[antcollinet]

I was refering to this: "We have to be careful of the statement that science has to consider all possibilities."
Theoretical physics, the maths, arent always right (any tool can be used inccorectly), they have to be proven by experiment. And I believe that the examples I gave were rarely considered possibilities. Einstein could have looked at his relatavistic equations and tossed them, thinking it was impossible, he had to consider all possibilities. And at the same time he didnt believe in quantum physics.
So I believe science dose have to consider all possibilities, but there are many that are easy to rule out.

The maths is a piece of evidence (like an observation) that can lead to the experimental investigation.

The typical audiophile who says (for example) "science should be open minded and consider the stuff we can't measure" says so without one shred of evidence, and no (scientifically valid) observation. These things fall into the category of those we don't need to consider.

As do magic crystals, cable lifters, esoteric cable materials, single terminal grounding boxes, anything with the word "quantum" on the box and so on - including pretty much everything in the snake oil thread.

Until someone brings an iota of actual evidence to the table.

 

[Sal1950]

Until someone brings an iota of actual evidence to the table.

And in my un-tabulated years as an objective audiophile I've never seen anything but BS layed out.