Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[sandyk]

I saw a fish give birth to a kitten. Discuss.

 

Were you on Morphine at the time? In Recovery , after my Spinal operation, I saw the hour hand of the nearby clock going backwards !

[alfe]

Full Revision of International Standards for Equal-Loudness Level Contours (ISO 226

The new standard is expected to play a crucially important role as the basic data for supporting the development of technologies for high precision audio signal reproduction suited for the DIGITAL era, such as techniques for efficiently compressing digital signals of music, determination of optimum frequency characteristics of high-definition audio reproduction systems, and so on.

 

That was in 2003, research is still on going....

[mmerrill99]

Alfe,

Thanks for posting the links to this updated hearing threshold.

 

It's probably a good example of the thread title - "why do reasonable people doubt science"

 

What we saw in recent posts about "thresholds of hearing" were two posters, esldude & wakibaki claiming that any questioning of the Fletcher-Munson curves was "wrong". It now appears that these curves have been updated twice since 1933, when they were first established - first in 1987 & then again in 2003. So obviously the Fletcher_Munson curves are not the scientific absolute that these people were maintaining. Even this latest 2003 ISO226 is criticised as being incorrect Some Reasons to Revise the International Standard ISO 226:2003: Acoustics

 

Note that these curves are established using "pure tone" test signals.

 

My opinion of the threshold of hearing was that it was based on pure tones & I would like to see curves established using more complex test tones - ones that were more cognisant of auditory perception.

 

An opinion I was told was founded on the wrong premise by esldude & scoffed at by Waki as deserving of a nobel prize if the "established" thresholds were tested & found incorrect.

 

So what we have are two posters, both of whom parade themselves as objectivists & rationalists & holders of the scientific truth, being so dismissive & demeaning of anybody who dare to ask questions of what they incorrectly consider the scientifically established metrics.

 

Is this not a great example of the thread's title & what is wrong - uninformed individuals putting themselves forth as the holders of scientific truth & criticising (in a condescending & demeaning way) of any who challenge their malformed scientific concepts?

[firedog]

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."

 

Alfe,

Thanks for posting the links to this updated hearing threshold.

 

It's probably a good example of the thread title - "why do reasonable people doubt science"

 

What we saw in recent posts about "thresholds of hearing" were two posters, esldude & wakibaki claiming that any questioning of the Fletcher-Munson curves was "wrong". It now appears that these curves have been updated twice since 1933, when they were first established - first in 1987 & then again in 2003. So obviously the Fletcher_Munson curves are not the scientific absolute that these people were maintaining. Even this latest 2003 ISO226 is criticised as being incorrect Some Reasons to Revise the International Standard ISO 226:2003: Acoustics

 

Note that these curves are established using "pure tone" test signals.

 

My opinion of the threshold of hearing was that it was based on pure tones & I would like to see curves established using more complex test tones - ones that were more cognisant of auditory perception.

 

An opinion I was told was founded on the wrong premise by esldude & scoffed at by Waki as deserving of a nobel prize if the "established" thresholds were tested & found incorrect.

 

So what we have are two posters, both of whom parade themselves as objectivists & rationalists & holders of the scientific truth, being so dismissive & demeaning of anybody who dare to ask questions of what they incorrectly consider the scientifically established metrics.

 

Is this not a great example of the thread's title & what is wrong - uninformed individuals putting themselves forth as the holders of scientific truth & criticising (in a condescending & demeaning way) of any who challenge their malformed scientific concepts?

[mmerrill99]

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."

Indeed, especially when you are of an arrogant mindset that "science" is on your side & you assume a condescending attitude towards others who don't share your closed-mindedness.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert in anything & I like to think that nothing is so untouchable that it is beyond questioning - in fact that's the very foundation of the scientific mind - a curiosity about things.

 

So, is it any wonder that reasonable people doubt "science" when the wrong information is presented in such a demeaning & condescending way by those who call themselves objectivists?

[wakibaki]

...simplistic reductionism...

 

Oh, I love the old insults, don't you? Takes me right back to the 50's. I used to like "The Running Dogs and Revisionist Lackeys of the International Imperialist Capitalist Conspiracy."

 

It's perfectly obvious that your only strategy is to shout loud enough about other people breaking the rules that nobody will notice that that's what you're doing. We all saw through that one in the playground.

[alfe]

Oh, I love the old insults, don't you? Takes me right back to the 50's. I used to like "The Running Dogs and Revisionist Lackeys of the International Imperialist Capitalist Conspiracy."

 

It's perfectly obvious that your only strategy is to shout loud enough about other people breaking the rules that nobody will notice that that's what you're doing. We all saw through that one in the playground.

 

Waki your knowledge have much more value than this, please share it.

[mayhem13]

Oh, I love the old insults, don't you? Takes me right back to the 50's. I used to like "The Running Dogs and Revisionist Lackeys of the International Imperialist Capitalist Conspiracy."

 

It's perfectly obvious that your only strategy is to shout loud enough about other people breaking the rules that nobody will notice that that's what you're doing. We all saw through that one in the playground.

 

Agreed. He often calls for discussion but refuses to listen. That's exactly why i don't engage debate with him any longer

[alfe]

Indeed, especially when you are of an arrogant mindset that "science" is on your side & you assume a condescending attitude towards others who don't share your closed-mindedness.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert in anything & I like to think that nothing is so untouchable that it is beyond questioning - in fact that's the very foundation of the scientific mind - a curiosity about things.

 

 

So, is it any wonder that reasonable people doubt "science" when the wrong information is presented in such a demeaning & condescending way by those who call themselves objectivists?

 

No one died, if you are challenged prove that you are right.

[alfe]

Agreed. He often calls for discussion but refuses to listen. That's exactly why i don't engage debate with him any longer

 

You are such a peaceful man:)

[mmerrill99]

Agreed. He often calls for discussion but refuses to listen. That's exactly why i don't engage debate with him any longer

Thank you for sparing me your debate which I was glad you gave up when a number of members suggested how you might check if your Benchmark DAC was masking audio due to it having an ASRC on the input. Guess you never checked this.

[mmerrill99]

No one died, if you are challenged prove that you are right.

Don't know what you mean but agree no one died

[mmerrill99]

Oh, I love the old insults, don't you? Takes me right back to the 50's. I used to like "The Running Dogs and Revisionist Lackeys of the International Imperialist Capitalist Conspiracy."

 

It's perfectly obvious that your only strategy is to shout loud enough about other people breaking the rules that nobody will notice that that's what you're doing. We all saw through that one in the playground.

Of course, try to deflect away from your statements made previously - anything rather than admit you were wrong

[wakibaki]

Of course, try to deflect away from your statements made previously - anything rather than admit you were wrong

 

Full Revision of International Standards for Equal-Loudness Level Contours (ISO 226)

 

Perhaps you'd like to point out the part of these equal loudness curves that refers to 20kHz and above?

 

When I talk about standards, I mean the most up to date standards. Whatever they turn out to be. I mean, what? I'm gonna use the out-of-date standards out of pure cussedness?

 

You've got some really perverse idea about what an engineer is, but one thing should be growing clear, an engineer does not jump the gun by basing designs on second guessing what might be in the next set of standards. Which, as far as I can tell, is what you want to do, and why you and I are disagreeing. I stand to be corrected.

[mmerrill99]

Full Revision of International Standards for Equal-Loudness Level Contours (ISO 226)

 

Perhaps you'd like to point out the part of these equal loudness curves that refers to 20kHz and above?

What the hell are you talking about?

 

When I talk about standards, I mean the most up to date standards. Whatever they turn out to be. I mean, what? I'm gonna use the out-of-date standards out of pure cussedness?

 

You've got some really perverse idea about what an engineer is, but one thing should be growing clear, an engineer does not jump the gun by basing designs on second guessing what might be in the next set of standards. Which, as far as I can tell, is what you want to do, and why you and I are disagreeing. I stand to be corrected.

Again, what the hell are you talking about?

I suggested that I would like to see an update to the thresholds of hearing metrics but based on signals that were more cognisant of what's known about auditory perception. You are arguing for sticking with the status quo measurements that use pure tone test signals (actually the 1933 Flecther-Munson curves) - I don't believe you or esldude was aware of the updates to these curves until Alfe brought them up.

 

As I said simplistic reductionism suits your argument.

[mmerrill99]

Full Revision of International Standards for Equal-Loudness Level Contours (ISO 226)

You've got some really perverse idea about what an engineer is, but one thing should be growing clear, an engineer does not jump the gun by basing designs on second guessing what might be in the next set of standards. Which, as far as I can tell, is what you want to do, and why you and I are disagreeing. I stand to be corrected.

BTW, who said anything about engineers - this thread is about science, not engineering - engineers are not scientists - they are the technicians that want a rule book to adhere to when designing something & usually are pretty close-minded as a result

[alfe]

High Definition Audio Test Files

 

Useful test:)

[wakibaki]

Again, what the hell are you talking about?

I suggested that I would like to see an update to the thresholds of hearing metrics but based on signals that were more cognisant of what's known about auditory perception. You are arguing for sticking with the status quo measurements that use pure tone test signals (actually the 1933 Flecther-Munson curves) - I don't believe you or esldude was aware of the updates to these curves until Alfe brought them up.

 

I'm sorry, how does this fit in with subjectivists vs. objectivists?

 

You are arguing the subjectivist position?

 

I presume from that, that when you say "I would like to see an update to the thresholds of hearing metrics but based on signals that were more cognisant of what's known about auditory perception", that your idea of "what's known about auditory perception" differs from those established in testing and acceptable to objectivists. Otherwise what's the difference between you and an objectivist?

[mmerrill99]

I'm sorry, how does this fit in with subjectivists vs. objectivists?

 

You are arguing the subjectivist position?

 

I presume from that, that when you say "I would like to see an update to the thresholds of hearing metrics but based on signals that were more cognisant of what's known about auditory perception", that your idea of "what's known about auditory perception" differs from those established in testing and acceptable to objectivists. Otherwise what's the difference between you and an objectivist?

You really think that pure tone test signals are suitable test signals that are "cognisant of what's known about auditory perception"?

[Jud]

Strikes me that if there were more "Here's something I've found that's interesting" and less "Here's why you're all wrong" - i.e., just the way these things are being said, even more than the content - that more light than heat might emerge.

 

Please see http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/do-we-need-arguments-and-helpful-advice-sub-forums-23660/ for what I (and others) are aiming at to make the experience a better one for all of us.

[mmerrill99]

Strikes me that if there were more "Here's something I've found that's interesting" and less "Here's why you're all wrong" - i.e., just the way these things are being said, even more than the content - that more light than heat might emerge.

But even when ABX results are presented that show a positive, statistically significant difference is audible between red book & high-res, Waki claims that the tester is dishonest & won't accept the results. So there's really little point in posting "here's something I found ......" with this level of disingenuousness.

 

Yea, Jud, I'm all for a better atmosphere on threads & perhaps this could start with some objectivists desisting from being so condescending in their replies as if they were the font of all knowledge?

[mayhem13]

I'm sorry, how does this fit in with subjectivists vs. objectivists?

 

You are arguing the subjectivist position?

 

I presume from that, that when you say "I would like to see an update to the thresholds of hearing metrics but based on signals that were more cognisant of what's known about auditory perception", that your idea of "what's known about auditory perception" differs from those established in testing and acceptable to objectivists. Otherwise what's the difference between you and an objectivist?

 

Take a page from my book. It's much better than slamming your head into his concrete wall.

[One and a half]

BTW, who said anything about engineers - this thread is about science, not engineering - engineers are not scientists - they are the technicians that want a rule book to adhere to when designing something & usually are pretty close-minded as a result

 

Mmmm, sort of. Engineers are visionary as much as any other profession, however the rule book is designed to protect and comply with standards, an example of this is electricity distribution that I have some awareness. Go beyond the rule book, and the smoke genie will appear soon enough. The rule book changes frequently to allow for new technology, however it creates more rules to learn....

[Jabs1542]

BTW, who said anything about engineers - this thread is about science, not engineering - engineers are not scientists - they are the technicians that want a rule book to adhere to when designing something & usually are pretty close-minded as a result

 

So here we go, we have another thread talking about how rude people are getting here on CA and I'm now calling you out. So you don't like Engineers and you don't care to give them much credit, no problem, but do you have to be rude about it? Technically my degrees are BS and MS with the "S" being Science.

 

Feel free to make your technical points as needed but please try to be less offensive to others.

 

Would this be considered a citizen's arrest?

[Tony Lauck]

BTW, who said anything about engineers - this thread is about science, not engineering - engineers are not scientists - they are the technicians that want a rule book to adhere to when designing something & usually are pretty close-minded as a result

 

Scientists discover natural laws that model how Nature works. Engineers use this knowledge to design useful objects and processes. Technicians follow these designs in doing their work. Models and designs are often imperfect, so the sequence above may require multiple iterations, especially when working near the state of the art. In addition, the same individual may play different roles at different times, depending on organizational factors.