-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Why Doubt Is Essential to Science - Sci. Am.
- Thread starter tuga
- Start date
theREALdotnet
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,204
- Likes
- 2,080
dc655321
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,597
- Likes
- 2,236
Similarly ambiguous and asinine.
theREALdotnet
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,204
- Likes
- 2,080
Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well!
To recap, I remarked that a scoring system pushing the top-20 into a few points of each other needs error bars to be fair, since the variability is at least +/-1 score point.
You then said it would be too small to show because the measurement uncertainly of the AP analyser is 10^-6.
This does not follow, since the scale is logarithmic and a +/-1dB change is perfectly visible (it is about 1% of the score in the range we’re talking about, i.e. -120dB), easy enough to show. It would illustrate that the stair-stepping down from the winner in the SINAD rankings is mostly noise, for the top-20.
Now, considering the measurement uncertainty of 10^-6 you mentioned (and which I can neither confirm nor deny), it would seem that the SINAD scoring system produces nonsense beyond about -114dB or so anyway. That, however, is not an argument I have made, since I don’t know anything about the veracity of that 10^-6 uncertainty number.
Capitol C
Active Member
I've had doctors refer me to other doctors either because the second doctor was a specialist, or, in the case of a specialist, because they wanted a second opinion. In the latter cases, I would have gotten a second opinion whether or not it was suggested.
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,535
- Likes
- 4,372
@Capitol C Amir means are you going to personally dismiss what your doctor tells you and go with your own opinion…derived entirely from your own ‘internet expert’ training in medicine.
I hope you read past post #2 before posting, because if you had, you would have realised this.
I hope you read past post #2 before posting, because if you had, you would have realised this.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
This:
"...the power of science lies precisely in its capacity to generate discussion and even discord."
"...the power of science lies precisely in its capacity to generate discussion and even discord."
Yes, it’s OK to second guess experts. At your peril, of course. Scientists, doctors, plumbers, roofers, auto mechanics. To reduce the “at you peril” part, you should have an understanding of the issues involved.
I’m not an auto mechanic, but I’m engineer, and I understand how things work in general. I took my car to the shop and told them to replace a fuel pump relay, which I had concluded was intermittent (it would die randomly, the maybe a minute later I could restart my car). I thought about the behavior a lot, and in an internet search mentioning an issue with the fuel relay in my vehicle model, I realized that was a failure mode that would precisely result in the behavior I suffered. The mechanic replaced the PCV valve instead, without consulting me. I went through weeks of a new fuel issue with my car, in and out of the shop as they redid their work trying to figure out the problem. Ultimately, they realized they had used a non OEM part, replaced it again and I got the car back. But it was still dying randomly, as before. I dig inside the dash and removed and repaired the fuel relay board myself—it was a poor solder joint. The car has run for years since, without issue. No, I’m not going to ever rebuild an engine, I’m in awe of the knowledge of mechanics, I don’t even think this guy was a poor mechanic. But I knew the nature of the problem, and I knew it wasn’t the PCV valve.
Same with doctors. I could tell lots of stories of misdiagnoses. The doctor who told me my stomach pain was due to my drinking and taking drugs? Me, a guy who took no drugs at all and rarely drank because it detracted for the work I put in at the gym—and couldn't stand to drink if I wanted to, due to the pain it would cause. He refused to send me to a specialist. I went to a new doctor, who in a few minutes of chatting diagnosed it as h. pylori, subsequently confirmed by tests.
Specialists? Like the dermatologist who looked at my right lower jaw area and said it was severe sun damage. I'm not a dermatologist, but that kind of damage usually falls on surfaced angled towards the sun (forehead, ears, cheeks, nose). I voice a little surprise, he barked angrily at me. I went to another dematologist, who basically said the guy was an idiot, and of course the angle is not conducive to sun damage—he said it was clearly a case of rosacia, and treated it.
I herniated disks in my neck years ago, in weight training. I was sent to a physical therapist—a good one, I had been to years before for a rear-ender accident. He had me stretching my neck by touching chin to chest. I told him I didn't think this was the right thing to do, he chuckled and said yes it was and we needed to do this, I complied. I mentioned it to the nerve doctor, who was horrified and said to stop doing it immediately (it was making the herniation worse).
Sorry for the boring personal stories. But I hope you see my point is not just that experts aren't always right, but if you have a reason that you think they might be wrong in a particular case, do not let anyone tell you to keep your mouth shut because you are not the expert.
It should go without saying that if you're an idiot and simply hunt for a doctor that agrees with what you want to hear, then you're an idiot. Personally I believe the idiot quotient on this board is low.
Scientific research: Some of it is very good, some of it is well done but the researchers get tricked by looking at the wrong thing, some of it is flawed, some of it is influenced by wanting a certain outcome too badly, occasionally to the point of fraud. If you read a lot of research papers, you know that many papers on the same topic will have opposing conclusions, and also conclusions that shift over time. For instance, there was a time when people wanted margarine (hydrogenated vegetable oils) to be healthier than butter a little too much. There were scientists from the start who disagreed, but they were either considered wrong, or pawns of the diary industry. Until it was concluded that they were right, and trans fats were in fact a health threat, and butter really did not correlate well with heart disease after all.
My opinion: Do question scientific research, as you see fit. Be disciplined enough to understand why, be able to present your case. If someone can argue why your case is flawed, that's a discussion. If they are right, accept it and think it over. If someone argues that you don't have the credentials to make an argument, ignore them politely.
Don't apologize for being a thinker.
PS—I'm presenting this respectfully, to those who might have implied otherwise. Just a little different viewpoint that I hope they might consider.
I’m not an auto mechanic, but I’m engineer, and I understand how things work in general. I took my car to the shop and told them to replace a fuel pump relay, which I had concluded was intermittent (it would die randomly, the maybe a minute later I could restart my car). I thought about the behavior a lot, and in an internet search mentioning an issue with the fuel relay in my vehicle model, I realized that was a failure mode that would precisely result in the behavior I suffered. The mechanic replaced the PCV valve instead, without consulting me. I went through weeks of a new fuel issue with my car, in and out of the shop as they redid their work trying to figure out the problem. Ultimately, they realized they had used a non OEM part, replaced it again and I got the car back. But it was still dying randomly, as before. I dig inside the dash and removed and repaired the fuel relay board myself—it was a poor solder joint. The car has run for years since, without issue. No, I’m not going to ever rebuild an engine, I’m in awe of the knowledge of mechanics, I don’t even think this guy was a poor mechanic. But I knew the nature of the problem, and I knew it wasn’t the PCV valve.
Same with doctors. I could tell lots of stories of misdiagnoses. The doctor who told me my stomach pain was due to my drinking and taking drugs? Me, a guy who took no drugs at all and rarely drank because it detracted for the work I put in at the gym—and couldn't stand to drink if I wanted to, due to the pain it would cause. He refused to send me to a specialist. I went to a new doctor, who in a few minutes of chatting diagnosed it as h. pylori, subsequently confirmed by tests.
Specialists? Like the dermatologist who looked at my right lower jaw area and said it was severe sun damage. I'm not a dermatologist, but that kind of damage usually falls on surfaced angled towards the sun (forehead, ears, cheeks, nose). I voice a little surprise, he barked angrily at me. I went to another dematologist, who basically said the guy was an idiot, and of course the angle is not conducive to sun damage—he said it was clearly a case of rosacia, and treated it.
I herniated disks in my neck years ago, in weight training. I was sent to a physical therapist—a good one, I had been to years before for a rear-ender accident. He had me stretching my neck by touching chin to chest. I told him I didn't think this was the right thing to do, he chuckled and said yes it was and we needed to do this, I complied. I mentioned it to the nerve doctor, who was horrified and said to stop doing it immediately (it was making the herniation worse).
Sorry for the boring personal stories. But I hope you see my point is not just that experts aren't always right, but if you have a reason that you think they might be wrong in a particular case, do not let anyone tell you to keep your mouth shut because you are not the expert.
It should go without saying that if you're an idiot and simply hunt for a doctor that agrees with what you want to hear, then you're an idiot. Personally I believe the idiot quotient on this board is low.
Scientific research: Some of it is very good, some of it is well done but the researchers get tricked by looking at the wrong thing, some of it is flawed, some of it is influenced by wanting a certain outcome too badly, occasionally to the point of fraud. If you read a lot of research papers, you know that many papers on the same topic will have opposing conclusions, and also conclusions that shift over time. For instance, there was a time when people wanted margarine (hydrogenated vegetable oils) to be healthier than butter a little too much. There were scientists from the start who disagreed, but they were either considered wrong, or pawns of the diary industry. Until it was concluded that they were right, and trans fats were in fact a health threat, and butter really did not correlate well with heart disease after all.
My opinion: Do question scientific research, as you see fit. Be disciplined enough to understand why, be able to present your case. If someone can argue why your case is flawed, that's a discussion. If they are right, accept it and think it over. If someone argues that you don't have the credentials to make an argument, ignore them politely.
Don't apologize for being a thinker.PS—I'm presenting this respectfully, to those who might have implied otherwise. Just a little different viewpoint that I hope they might consider.
Last edited:
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,535
- Likes
- 4,372
The power of science is to generate such discussion and discord at the expert level.
When it happens at the ignoramus level…that’s the power of the internet.
It's not so much that scientific theories are completely overturned anymore. It's more that we find that the more we explore, there turns out to be instances when a current scientific model doesn't completely explain new discoveries or conditions. Often this leads to a more encompassing model of which the old theory is but a special case. For example, Newtons Theory of Universal Gravitations is a special case of Einsteins Theory of General Relativity.
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,535
- Likes
- 4,372
I love it when people always bring up Einstein vs Newton to explain why audio science hasn't "yet" explained why cables and DACs really do sound different in casual sighted listening at home.
The fact that the people who do that think they are straddling audio science and judging it knowledgeably...is so ignorant that it's laughable.
The fact that the people who do that think they are straddling audio science and judging it knowledgeably...is so ignorant that it's laughable.
Talking about cables. Me don't really understand how it conducts power/signal. We were taught in school about current flowing through cable. Turns out to be wrong. And what's even more mind blowing is delay between you flipping the switch and bulb lighting up has nothing to do with length of wire, it's the straight line distance between bulb and switch. It's really incredible.
Yes, our theories and models are only based on our understanding at that point of time. It doesn't mean it's correct.
Just like what you mentioned about newton and Einstein. Even till today, we still don't understand effects of speciality. We know it happens but no idea why or how it happens. Why must speed of light be the ultimate speed?? How does time even slow down?
I doubt we will know the answer. Perhaps a few hundred years later (assuming mankind is still around) someone might discover it.
LOL—I didn't understand what you were saying at first, and questioned it. I wasn't sure if you were saying my advice was bad, so I did a semi-long post giving an example of evaluating scientific research, just to make sure I was being clear. Immediately upon posting, I realized what you meant
Last edited:
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Depends on how you define "school". Once you move a litte higher up in the educational system, those viral Veritasium videos become something that's already very well known
Depends on how you define "school". Once you move a litte higher up in the educational system, those viral Veritasium videos become something that's already very well known
During my time in university, YouTube didn't exist yet...
Established science that already explains and predicts the known and observed real-world facts must be improved upon and not just thrown out as wrong. Acceleration due to gravity will not go away with a new future theory, and neither will time dilation no matter what replaces Newton or Einstein. All confirmed experimental results and even some future predictions, to boot, must be explained and confirmed by any new theory.
Doubt based on no understanding or knowledge of existing science or experimental results is a fool's errand. Which is why almost all audiophile "theories" have no real scientific value -- they ignore most, if not all, the known facts.
As to why certain things exist in our Universe (like the speed of light) is probably best left to philosophers. Until we can examine other universes with different fundamental constants (or find some region in ours where these constants are different) this will remain a speculation or a hypothesis with no falsification possible.