Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[charbong]

That was Socrates.And he was executed for this.

You are correct that it was Socrates, not Plato, who was executed. I made a mistake. Perhaps that is why nobody got the joke.

The questions he asked was a method.

Yes indeed, it was called the dialectic. You should try it.

At least google before you write!

I was a philosophy major (about 40 years ago) and speaking off the cuff. I apologize for any ATP (cellular energy) that this has cost you.

 

[Sokel]

Yes indeed, it was called the dialectic. You should try it.

Nope,not these days.
There are more answers than it should.

 

[Robbo99999]

(Page 166 is comprised of 100% off-topic posts, maybe the mods should delete, as well as this post)

 

[Waxx]

Even long before the Greek, the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians were busy with math as base of their "science. The Egyptians discovered the mathematical rules of geometry about 5000 years ago (3000BC) and used those to build their huge buildings (temples, pyramids, palaces, ...). The Sumerians and their decendents, the Babylonians had extended scientific knowledge of chemistry and mathematics. For instance on the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet Plimpton 322 the Pythagorean theorem was explained a millenium before Pytagoras made the greek note about it. Their knowledge of astronomy was so extended that it's still studied today by atronomist and new stuff is found on their descriptions.

And then we are not talking yet about other asian cultures like the Indian or chinese culture who were a lot more scientific advanced than the European culture just till a few centuries ago. Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhata (476–550), in his Aryabhatiya (499) introduced the sine function in trigonometry. In 628 CE, Brahmagupta suggested that gravity was a force of attraction and explained the use of zero as both a placeholder and a decimal digit along with the Hindu–Arabic numeral system now used universally throughout the world. Arabic translations of the two astronomers' texts were soon available in the Islamic world, introducing what would become Arabic numerals to the Islamic world by the 9th century. During the 14th–16th centuries, the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics made significant advances in astronomy and especially mathematics, including fields such as trigonometry and analysis. In particular, Madhava of Sangamagrama is considered the "founder of mathematical analysis". In the Tantrasangraha treatise (1501), Nilakantha Somayaji's updated the Aryabhatan model for the interior planets, Mercury, and Venus and the equation that he specified for the center of these planets was more accurate than the ones in European or Islamic astronomy until the time of Johannes Kepler in the 17th century. And i can go on for a long time like that...

But in our Eurocentric view, this is al not much known, but a big part of our scientific knowledge is thanks to the Arabs, Persians and other Iranian people, the Indians and in lesser degree the Chinese. The old Greek and old Egyptian also were very important off course, but by far not the only or the most advanced ones. Europe started to learn about this in the Renaissance period and it took centuries to get by and pass their scientific and technologic knowledge.

 

[Sokel]

Would Hypatia considered a scientist?Would the person who made Antikythera mechanism considered an advanced engineer?
Astronomy was practiced thousands of years ago as @Waxx mentioned above.

I don't think there is a hard line in time of science,only remarkable people who push us forward.
With one exception,and that is Hippocrates.He was the first who got rid of all the mumbo-jumbo divine or magical causes and focused on nature,on the real things who makes us ill.

Does that ring a bell?

 

[Jimbob54]

(Page 166 is comprised of 100% off-topic posts, maybe the mods should delete, as well as this post)

Pretty sure the purpose of this thread is a dumping ground for bickering and posturing- Im not sure the subject matters much as long as its contained here and borderline civil. Any salient points on the topic have probably been made 10 times already from either side.

One to either dive into or mute I would have thought.

 

[ahofer]

Any salient points on the topic have probably been made 10 times already from either side.

Forum Completion Theory

 

[BDWoody]

(Page 166 is comprised of 100% off-topic posts, maybe the mods should delete, as well as this post)

This is basically the kiddie pool... We aren't going to do a lot of moderating in here, other than when it gets overly personal, etc. A bit of splashing around is to be expected.

We get 30-50 new members every day, so recurring themes are going to be a recurring theme. Sometimes the 'OT' posts in here break the monotony of the rest of it.

 

[gavagai]

For what is worth : Aristotle as the first scientist.

1. "Science" is the common translation, via the latin scientia, of the greek épistémè.
2. The treaty of épistémè is the "Posteriors Analytics".
3. Epistémè is for Aristotle the true knowledge. It's a deductive knowledge. It has characteristics that are radically incompatible with modern science. It is a knowledge that is not unified (there's only sciences, not Science with a capital S); it's a knowledge that is as necessarily as logic and mathematics ; it's a knowledge that it based on foundations, that is the so called "first principles".
4. "First principles" are indeed mysterious things. We know that obiviouness and induction are at stake. But there are no methods or theories related to them.
5. Dialectic is not a method, but a concrete device composed by to opponents that argue by the mean of syllogisms. These syllogisms are not rooted on first principles, but on likely opinions (hence the latin name of the knowledge in the middle ages : opinio). "likly" has not to be taken in it's modern sense, as a degree of certainty obtained by an induction method. "likely" mean approved by almost everybody, or someone with great authority, that is known as a reliable person in the domain in question. (this sense of "likely" is less opaque in french : probable, approbation, probité).
6. The knowledge theoretically produced by a dialectical device is 1) deductive and 2) more compatible with modern science, essentially because the syllogisms involved are rooted upon opinions, which invalidate for Aristotle the necessarily of the conclusions (hence the idea of a degraded knowledge). But, obviously, likely opinions are not compatible with modern science.
7. In fact, the treaties about animals can only be seen as scientific, because they seems to rely upon a wide variety "facts" obtained by direct observations. And, in fact, it's really an impressive work.
8. But the scientificity of these treaties is an illusion because likely opinions was a thing. When a direct observation was in a direct contraction with a likely opinion, the former was discarded in favor of the latter. The reason why a lot of direct observations weren't discarded is simple : they were niche observations, very far from philosophical interest, and preoccupations of everybody. So they weren't concerned by likely opinions. For Aristotle, there was no "facts" in the modern sense of the word, as it is used in modern science. No direct observations can refute a very likely opinion. Aristotle philosophy lacks a mere conception of induction.

 

[Vacceo]

Galileo is generally considered the first scientist. You need hypothesis tested by experiment. Though not as well known an English man named Gilbert predated Galileo by 20 years and his book was read by Galileo

That argument is something Bruno Latour would agree with, as concepts, according to him, cannot exist before being defined. That would make science a concept from Descartes onwards. Those debates are interesting for onthologists, but for more practical concerns are not very meaningful, as genetics indeed worked long before Mendel described his three laws.

Heuristics have indeed been applied for millenia before him and the word scientia in Latin and its Greek equivalent episteme, were obviously around for much of that time. Apply a systematic method to heuristics, record the results and try to come up with an explanation for the phenomena. Ta da! You have the scientific method even if you don´t give it a name.

 

[Robbo99999]

Pretty sure the purpose of this thread is a dumping ground for bickering and posturing- Im not sure the subject matters much as long as its contained here and borderline civil. Any salient points on the topic have probably been made 10 times already from either side.

One to either dive into or mute I would have thought.

Oh my God, I didn't realise it was that bad, I mean I knew it was a dumping ground, but I thought the dumping still had to be related to whether or not measurements can describe everything with regard to "fidelity".....rather than just random other topics.

This is basically the kiddie pool... We aren't going to do a lot of moderating in here, other than when it gets overly personal, etc. A bit of splashing around is to be expected.

We get 30-50 new members every day, so recurring themes are going to be a recurring theme. Sometimes the 'OT' posts in here break the monotony of the rest of it.

Ha, alright then

 

[charbong]

Heuristics have indeed been applied for millenia before him and the word scientia in Latin and its Greek equivalent episteme, were obviously around for much of that time. Apply a systematic method to heuristics, record the results and try to come up with an explanation for the phenomena. Ta da! You have the scientific method even if you don´t give it a name.

I agree. These are the basic ingredients. All other "requisites" are just fixins on the hot dog.

 

[MattHooper]

This is basically the kiddie pool... We aren't going to do a lot of moderating in here, other than when it gets overly personal, etc. A bit of splashing around is to be expected.

We get 30-50 new members every day, so recurring themes are going to be a recurring theme. Sometimes the 'OT' posts in here break the monotony of the rest of it.

Agreed.

It's not like this thread is a monster crouched in the forum that reaches out to grab people and force them to read it. And as happens often in long threads like these, some who deride purported off topic posts have contributed to those same discussions! Repetition of themes is to be expected in forums.
Just because some individual has "heard it all before" doesn't mean it's not relevant to others. (And note, new people have joined the conversation).

As it happens, much of the discussion in this thread over the past week or so has fit very well with general thread topic.

In any case, it's clear from the OP that Amir left the discussion topics open ended. The science discussion has been interesting to read IMO.
Anyone else can introduce a topic at any time, if they wish.

 

[charbong]

This is basically the kiddie pool...

Hmm, less restrictions, more freedom.... Seems like the adult pool to me.

 

[spartaman64]

How is that possible, it doen't even make sense

I guess maybe the playing itself is of poor quality with tons of mistakes but the recording captured the mistakes very well

 

[gavagai]

I agree. These are the basic ingredients. All other "requisites" are just fixins on the hot dog.

I agree. Einstein's theory of relativity is not a conceptual achievement, just an heuristic achievement. He collected data about the the deformation of space-time (he has in his hands a space-time deformation measurement tool), sum them up and voilà !
You (with @Vacceo) really don't know what your talking about, don't you ?
In a way I admire you : you assert things based on knowledge that obviously you don't have, all that in a superb self aggrandizing gesture.
Don't change anything, really.

 

[Ralph_Cramden]

Reality doesn’t exist until you measure it, quantum parlor trick confirms​

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[fpitas]

Older horns often have dips and peaks on-axis, even though the power response is relatively flat. The problem is caused by varying directivity with frequency. The dispersion varies, broader and narrower, and the beam goes on and off axis as well. What you hear is, as usual, a combination of on-axis and the power response, so it gets complicated. EQing the on-axis ruler flat destroys the power response and usually just sounds bad. For some older horns though, you can knock down the worst on-axis peaks and they still do a good job.

Modern JBL horns in particular have much smoother directivity than previous generations; however, the power response is ragged. But, that can be EQd by the speaker designer in the crossover. Look at the crossover for something like the DD67000 and you will see numerous traps for that reason.

Most speakers I see reviewed here don't feature what I would call a horn, it's a waveguide, used only to control dispersion. Yes, a waveguide becomes a horn at some high frequency; but if the horn cutoff is at or above the crossover frequency, I call that a waveguide. Conversely, a horn usually maintains horn loading well below the crossover. An actual horn offers an advantage in IM performance, as it limits the driver diaphragm excursion by the acoustic loading.

Note: At one point, this was a sensible reply to a question about horns. Honest!

 

[Triliza]

Personal preferences were part of Dr. Toole research, and those experiments showed that most people preferred neutral speakers. If most people had preferred speakers with dips, you can be sure that all the Revel's would had that dip. You can see that with the elevated bass in headphones, give people what they like.

 

[fpitas]

Music is mixed on forward radiating cone speakers, maybe with horn mid/highs. So omnis and panel are thus in some sense not accurate, that's one factor. Now they can sound very good (OMG giant MBLs playing a reel-to-reel of "Rapper's Delight" maybe the best thing I've heard ever), however they are especially sensitive to the room and placement so don't work for everybody. Also some panels really can't do bass, maybe not play super loud (unless giant panels with huge amps maybe). Omnis and panels also tend to be more expensive and more niche, "normal people" won't find them so easily.

The Volti, good reviews, the frequency response was not at all flat, very peculiar. Horns can be like that, there is *something* about their sound which can be very compelling. However why should the basic response be [vomit]? Can't we have both? Then to your #4: I'd expect high end JBL should be smoother measuring than horns of old days; newer regular line Klipsch as well. I still dream about horn speakers, I still hope someday to build maybe 12" two-way with giant horns. I just wish there was a good multichannel DSP crossover solution for that.

I'm using the RCF DX-02006 for my DSP and crossover. So far I haven't heard any sonic blemishes.