The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[q3cpma]

A true person of science does not outright-dismiss the findings of others or force another person into a sitution where they feel the need to defend themselves, no matter how stupid or irrelevant their view may seem. A true scientist looks to understand the reason's the other person came to their conflicting conclusion(s), with the hope of attaining new knowledge There is no room for a closed mind or a bad attitude in any of the sciences & this is particularly true with digital audio.

Is dismissing a "2+2=banana" hypothesis close minded? Why would close mindedness be wrong when you're right? The answer is obviously: it's not. Science is about trying to find truth, not coddle some borderline mentally ill individuals or peddlers.
You're obviously suffering from the modern cult of absolute relativism, which is an oxymoron in addition to being wrong. Which is also not what a "true person of science" can suffer from.

To be simple: is answering to all these "snake oil" claims with "burden of proof -> measurements and/or ABX" a "bad attitude" to you?

 

[Thomas savage]

Your bias is obvious. Get off my back. Your political agenda is extreme. Stop pretending to be a choir boy.

Ron if you want to continue to participate in these non audio topics your going to have to become less defensive and stop taking everything so personally.

If you can't do that I'd ask you to stick to audio threads as it's creating too much work for me.

 

[mansr]

Finally, even if we achieve such a theory we'll always be left with the unanswerable question "why is there something rather than nothing?" I have no insight there.

That one is easy: because it can.

 

[Wombat]

That one is easy: because it can.

and because it is.

 

[Wes]

Worst thing about science is historians and esp. philosophers of science muddying the waters.

And no, science does not reduce to philosophy.

 

[Robin L]

Just so we understand the OP here. Other people have already pointed this out, but I bolded the relevant passage:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author,[3] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.[5][6] He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973[3] and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978.[7]

Sheldrake's morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature"[3][8] and that "natural systems... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind."[8] Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms."[9][10] His advocacy of the idea offers idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.[a]

Other work by Sheldrake encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, empirical research into telepathy and the psychic staring effect.[10][27]Sheldrake's ideas, while lacking scientific acceptance, have found support in the New Age movement from individuals such as Deepak Chopra.[28][29][30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

 

[tmtomh]

And no, science does not reduce to philosophy.

Excellent point.

 

[amirm]

The battle in audio is not one scientist against the other. It is the battle of average lay person making up their own rules for audio, versus properly researched engineering, physics, and psychoacoustics. To pick fights or try to find holes in "science" is not equal to believing in made-up stuff by audiophiles.

In that regard though, it is the same as OP's reference. A bunch of made up notions about underlying force in nature with no evidence to support it.

Most of us conduct ourselves according to basic science and norms. Few of us play doctor instead of going to a real one. Once there, few of us challenge the doctor doesn't know as much as what we googled before seeing him. Yet in audio, we put aside that common sense and go by lay intuition and claim "science doesn't know this and that."

 

[amirm]

As a recent example, a person sent me a nastygram in email saying there is no DAC in phone dongles so my measurements are all wrong. I explained to him that when I plug in the dongle into a PC, windows recognizes the item as a DAC and showed him the control panel. He wrote back essentially saying I am an arrogant bastard that doesn't know what he is talking about. I told him that my team wrote the audio subsystem in Windows so this is what I know at basic level. And went on to show him USB probes of the system demonstrating there is a DAC in the dongle. He went quiet then.

This is like challenging your doctor that he doesn't know what a common cold looks like. Such is life in audio where we have to keep defending the fundamental science against people who don't know the most basic things in audio and go by stuff they read online.

So again this is not the battle of sciences. It is the battle of the lay person without technical knowledge thinking he knows more than people who do this for a living. And have to get the answers right.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I ain't never seen a DAC in a Dongle? Anecdotal emperical proof.

I ain't never seen a cold virus either, but they show 'em on TV commercials.

 

[Old Listener]

Worst thing about science is historians and esp. philosophers of science muddying the waters.

And no, science does not reduce to philosophy.

I don't want to see science reduced to politics either.

 

[Tks]

Skepticism that fails to provide valid (let alone sound) rational for an alternative.

Yes, we understand anyone can take the position of solipsism. I just fail to understand what insight is gained even if this were true but hidden. If the scientific laws we describe can be used for fruitful future predictions about our world, that is as close as you can get to truth. Simply declaring "well you don't know FOR SURE 100%" isn't anything informative. I can concede completely and then ask "so what? What do we now do to understand our world when taking your stance? What alternative explanation can you posit for us to exploit and better predict to so our lives in the world are improved?

It is at that point you understand the stupidity many of these infantile fools attempt to espouse. Science not being perfect doesn't now make your counter claim a better choice. The sorts of implicit false dichotomies these sorts of people attempt to subliminally sometimes pass off can only work in groups plagued with lack of education.

He attempts to wear a coat of reasonability, by saying he has no issue with science itself, but how journals operate.. Okay, so what? What is the logistical theory he has worked out in perfecting the system? Bogus studies hit journals all the time, and then get removed after a test is attempted in reproduction but fails. The Scientific Method doesn't safeguard against bogus research's existence, it safeguards against it's perpetuation indefinitely.

Lastly, this guy is a quack. Everyone understands speed of light doesn't travel at a constant in atmosphere. This is something you learn in high school at the latest. Simply comedic that he has the audacity to even speak, I can't imagine how his family or friends must feel..

 

[Ron Texas]

Elvis has left the building. Please stop dumping on me.

 

[Thomas savage]

Elvis has left the building. Please stop dumping on me.

I deleted those , indeed it was unfair .

We are moving on.

 

[Maxicut]

We are moving on.

I'm pretty sure Ron Texas (& many others) has...

 

[raistlin65]

If the scientific laws we describe can be used for fruitful future predictions about our world, that is as close as you can get to truth.

Works for me, if it's commonly accepted science, because I'm a social constructionist. Truth is what the scientific community decides it to be.

More about how science is socially constructed for those who are curious

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9314650/

 

[RayDunzl]

Elvis has left the building. Please stop dumping on me.

Elvis has just left the building --
Those are his footprints, right there
Elvis has just left the building --
To climb up that heavenly stair

He gave away Cadillacs once in a while;
Had sex in his underpants,
Yes, he had style!
Bell-bottom jump-suits?
That's them in a pile,
But he don't need 'em now,
'Cause he's makin' Jesus smile!

Elvis has just left the building --
(There he goes!)
Those are his footprints, right there
Elvis has just left the building --
To climb up that heavenly stair

The Angels all love him,
He brings them relief
With droplets of moisture
From his handkerchief!
Cher'bim 'n ser'phim
Whizz over his head --
Jesus, let him come back!
We don't want Elvis dead!

So what if he looks like a wart-hog in heat?
He knows we all love him --
We'll just watch him eat,
So take down the foil
From his hotel retreat,
And bring back The King
For the man in the street!

Elvis has just left the building --
Those are his footprints, right there
Elvis has just left the building --
He's up there with Jesus, in a big purple chair

 

[q3cpma]

As a recent example, a person sent me a nastygram in email saying there is no DAC in phone dongles so my measurements are all wrong. I explained to him that when I plug in the dongle into a PC, windows recognizes the item as a DAC and showed him the control panel. He wrote back essentially saying I am an arrogant bastard that doesn't know what he is talking about. I told him that my team wrote the audio subsystem in Windows so this is what I know at basic level. And went on to show him USB probes of the system demonstrating there is a DAC in the dongle. He went quiet then.

This is like challenging your doctor that he doesn't know what a common cold looks like. Such is life in audio where we have to keep defending the fundamental science against people who don't know the most basic things in audio and go by stuff they read online.

So again this is not the battle of sciences. It is the battle of the lay person without technical knowledge thinking he knows more than people who do this for a living. And have to get the answers right.

You could have just said that DAC means "Digital to Analogue Converter" and that the dongle takes digital and outputs analogue, so there must be a DAC somewhere in it. Getting technical with lusers doesn't work, usually.

 

[Tks]

I just wanna know who these people are that have his email >_>

 

[hyperplanar]

You could have just said that DAC means "Digital to Analogue Converter" and that the dongle takes digital and outputs analogue, so there must be a DAC somewhere in it. Getting technical with lusers doesn't work, usually.

That person probably thought these were just passive dongles. It can be confusing telling which is which, since USB-C, the mess that it is, has a mode that passes an analog audio signal through the data pins. This is pretty much only found in some Android phones though. The fact that the Apple dongle worked connected to a PC is a pretty good indicator it’s an active dongle (i.e. has a DAC inside).