As to a "sudden influx of ne'er do wells," I am not sure implying people posting here are lazy or irresponsible helps the discussion, but in regard to component vibration, if that's one's thing, I would employ a cheap hockey puck before getting an expensive audiophile gizmo.
As to skepticism and science, I think it is very well articulated below:
"Skepticism is the act of suspending judgment (the opposite of jumping to conclusions) when evaluating an explanation or claims. It allows scientists to consider all possibilities and systematically question all information in the course of an investigation. Why is maintaining a skeptical outlook so important? Skepticism helps scientists to remain objective when performing scientific inquiry and research. It forces them to examine claims (their own and those of others) to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to back them up. Skeptics do not doubt every claim, only those backed by insufficient evidence or by data that have been improperly collected, are not relevant or cannot support the rationale being made.
"People sometimes confuse skepticism with denial. Skepticism allows scientists to reach logical conclusions supported by evidence that has been examined and confirmed by others in the same field, even when that evidence does not confirm absolute certainty. By contrast, denial is the act of clinging to an idea or belief despite the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"In order to remain objective, scientists must remain skeptical. In order for scientific knowledge to be advanced, that knowledge must be open to revision. Science works to determine the statistical probability (mathematical likelihood) of a claim's accuracy, not its certainty. Similarly, in a court of law, juries are asked to accept a level of proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt — not absolute certainty — when deciding to convict a defendant."
----------
In most instances, issue or polemics I prefer to rely on facts or conclusive data. That is my choice. I do find it ironic that some professing the scientific method tend to use it rather selectively in their lives or the assertions they make.
I have zero issue with Amir and others extolling the virtues of impeccable measurements. I believe 100% in the data he reports, which is why I read this site most days of the week. I am also not concenred about someone stating that they contend they hear differences in audio components or DACs that measure similarly. While we can measure audio components with extreme accuracy, there is still a lot about human brains, ears and perception that we cannot measure or explain. And their are 8 billion of us, all sharing most of the same DNA, but all quite uninquely different.
I asked you why your figure is 0.5? Why not 0.25 or 0.75? Which measurement standard do you have in mind? Otherwise these are random comments if you do not make any references to the known literature (it's called scholarly approach since you like pinpointing).
