- Joined
- May 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,078
- Likes
- 2,309
This is a foundational point, but it doesn't lead where you want it to lead. I had two eminent pure scientists in my family, so I know the mindset intimately. If the same sound was heard ten different ways, you bet they would ask why. They would be genuinely excited for a second, and then, instinctively, they would start a mental checklist: can an experiment be designed? What else would I be missing by doing this? How much time and budget would it need?If ten different people say there are, they hear, differences, as a scientist, you'd ask why is that!?!?
Because if they choose to pursue it, their enthusiasm comes at a cost. Therefore, again instinctively, their first operational thought is, "I better check the basic proposition is, you know, actually true, so we need to blind test these ten people, maybe alongside fifty or a hundred others, representative of the population. If everything looks solid and repeatable, we'll set something up."
Therefore, a point you feel attacks ASR's method actually supports it. There are members here who have designed amazing, landmark technology. There are others who will, one day - if only they could find a fruitful avenue of inquiry. They would love it with an intensity you can't imagine if something new came up. But so far, nothing has survived contact with that first operational question: is the basic proposition actually true?