Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[Jud]

It was at a hearing for a Preliminary Injunction. The judge had already declared his lack of knowledge of the technology and his belief that opposing councel would employ their "lawyerly skills" when it came to "the battle of the experts". Opposing counsel first tried to disqualify me due to my lack of academic credentials, but I was able to quickly overcome that obstacle. Later, he attempted to discredit me by misquoting from my deposition, omitting the word "not" from one paragraph. It was very well done, and if I had been a BS'er I would have been caught. Instead, I forced him to make me read from my deposition transcript, and when I came to the "not" I paused, raised my voice an octave and recited the missing word. At that point there were no more "memory tests". My councel later informed me that at the crucial point the judge's eyes rolled.

 

Unfortunately, the case was dismissed before I could have any more entertainment or opportunities for being remunerated for wearing a suit. I can definitely say this was the most fun I've ever had wearing a suit. By the way, opposing counsel wore the second nicest suit I've ever seen.The nicest suit was also in the same courtroom and it belonged to his client.

 

So he deposed you, but didn't gain anything by it. Is it at all possible he would have missed the "not" in preparation? That would be easier for me to believe than the sheer idiocy of an intentional misquote.

 

Asking for an expert to be disqualified is usually a waste of time. I wouldn't have bothered.

 

Who was asking for the injunction, your side or the other?

[wakibaki]

Have you broken any 2M DX records, or tried Moonbounce ?

 

I have a Yaesu handheld, but I rarely use it. I got the licence because I wanted to be legal to emit, and I was into building a radio that I though I could reasonably claim was my own design. Like if I was in a prisoner of war camp, I would still be able to get the news with the aid of a tin can, a coil of wire, a magnet and a rusty nail.

[jabbr]

I

A fundamental rule of cross examination is never to ask a question to which you don't know the answer.

 

I was astonished to be asked at the end of a deposition: "Is there anything else you'd like to add?"

[Tony Lauck]

So he deposed you, but didn't gain anything by it. Is it at all possible he would have missed the "not" in preparation? That would be easier for me to believe than the sheer idiocy of an intentional misquote.

 

Asking for an expert to be disqualified is usually a waste of time. I wouldn't have bothered.

 

Who was asking for the injunction, your side or the other?

 

My counsel was asking for the preliminary injunction. In the judge's ruling he accepted my arguments in favor of probable infringement, but rejected the request because the parties had a previous contractual relationship that dealt with technology licensing, which details were facts to be decided at trial.

 

There was no question in my mind that the misquote was deliberate. I can only imagine what would have happened if I had answered differently. I took all of this in the spirit of "jousting gladiators" and a grand game. I had been hired by the plaintiff's counsel, originally as a consultant, but then when the "expert" didn't pan out I filled that role. In the end, the defendant corporation acquired the plaintiff corporation. I suppose it was a case of "all's well that end's well".

[wakibaki]

Well, last night I suggested some natural medicine to level (or cancel) the ego , but Chris Connaker erased my post (like some others). Maybe Chris believed it was free advertising

 

It could be like Halley Comet, you see it, then disappear por a long time

 

Anyway, I am a very patient man and as we say in Spanish, "There is no disease that lasts forever or body that resists".

 

Roch

 

That's called 'counting your chickens.'

 

One thing that has surprised me since I was told I was terminal is how many people have died before me that I wasn't expecting. Leonard Nimoy, for example.

[Tony Lauck]

That's called 'counting your chickens.'

 

One thing that has surprised me since I was told I was terminal is how many people have died before me that I wasn't expecting. Leonard Nimoy, for example.

 

We are all terminal, it's just a question of timing. My best wishes for you on your particular journey.

[wakibaki]

We are all terminal, it's just a question of timing. My best wishes for you on your particular journey.

 

Of course, Tony. I've been lucky enough to be offered a place in a clinical trial, so that opens up the window of hope a bit. Spontaneous remissions are not unheard of. Thanks, anyway. You don't have to be careful what you say around me, Roch didn't. Try not to take offence if I say some cutting things, just write it off as my rage against the night. But don't argue one whit less vehemently.

[Jud]

I was astonished to be asked at the end of a deposition: "Is there anything else you'd like to add?"

 

That's the right thing to do at a deposition, but not in front of a judge and/or jury at a hearing or trial.

[elcorso]

That's called 'counting your chickens.'

 

One thing that has surprised me since I was told I was terminal is how many people have died before me that I wasn't expecting. Leonard Nimoy, for example.

 

I'm not 'counting any chicken' like waiting from some one to die.

 

BTW, I'm on the 'doctors terminal window' from about 15 years ago, but I have not wanted to agree with them

 

Roch

[JR4321]

Love the x-exam example. Wonder what the % of Intelligent Design believers would be, here?

[jabbr]

That's the right thing to do at a deposition, but not in front of a judge and/or jury at a hearing or trial.

 

I was called as an expert by the defense. The defendant was dropped after the depo so perhaps that question saved everyone's time.

[Jud]

My counsel was asking for the preliminary injunction. In the judge's ruling he accepted my arguments in favor of probable infringement, but rejected the request because the parties had a previous contractual relationship that dealt with technology licensing, which details were facts to be decided at trial.

 

There was no question in my mind that the misquote was deliberate. I can only imagine what would have happened if I had answered differently. I took all of this in the spirit of "jousting gladiators" and a grand game. I had been hired by the plaintiff's counsel, originally as a consultant, but then when the "expert" didn't pan out I filled that role. In the end, the defendant corporation acquired the plaintiff corporation. I suppose it was a case of "all's well that end's well".

 

Then the opposing attorney was an idiot. Preliminary injunctions are as a legal matter very difficult to get (asking for one was probably a tactical error by the lawyer on *your* side, unless his client absolutely insisted) and there was the factual question of the existing contract preventing it from happening, so the lawyer didn't need to lie to achieve his desired result. Once you lose credibility with a judge, that sort of news spreads and completely poisons your reputation (as it should).

 

Was the eventual buyout something the plaintiff had foreseen and wanted? If not, then it may have been a mistake to start litigation in the first place (maybe not, if it left the plaintiff in a better financial position).

[Jud]

Try not to take offence if I say some cutting things, just write it off as my rage against the night.

 

Love Dylan Thomas.

 

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 

Edit: Best of luck with the clinical trial. It may help you, and it will damned sure help others in future.

[christopher3393]

With respect:

 

Dylan Thomas, 1914 - 1953

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,

Because their words had forked no lightning they

Do not go gentle into that good night.

 

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright

Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,

And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,

Do not go gentle into that good night.

 

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight

Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 

And you, my father, there on the sad height,

Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[Tony Lauck]

Was the eventual buyout something the plaintiff had foreseen and wanted? If not, then it may have been a mistake to start litigation in the first place (maybe not, if it left the plaintiff in a better financial position).

 

I haven't a clue. In the end, this matter pretty much convinced me that involving myself in such disputes was not a socially useful use of my time, however personally remunerative.

[wakibaki]

Thanks, that does sound useful. Back when I was doing litigation on highly technical matters, one thing I looked for in interviewing and hiring our experts, and deposing and cross-examining theirs, was detail in depth. Does it still make sense after a couple of questions have been asked and answered, or does it quickly get to "It's turtles all the way down"?

 

I get the uncomfortable feeling we may be having a conversation.

 

I'm sorry if it's a bit bleak, if you want cheery try a Cormac McCarthy book.

 

You seem like a pretty reasonable guy, I just presumed you were my enemy, because you disagree so vehemently with eslguy, on the basis that my friends enemy is my enemy. I don't see eye-to-eye with eslguy on everything, but his heart is in the right place. What exactly is it that you and he disagree so profoundly on?

[esldude]

I get the uncomfortable feeling we may be having a conversation.

 

I'm sorry if it's a bit bleak, if you want cheery try a Cormac McCarthy book.

 

You seem like a pretty reasonable guy, I just presumed you were my enemy, because you disagree so vehemently with eslguy, on the basis that my friends enemy is my enemy. I don't see eye-to-eye with eslguy on everything, but his heart is in the right place. What exactly is it that you and he disagree so profoundly on?

 

No, no, no, Jud is not my enemy and he will agree with that. We have different opinions, but not enemies.

 

My heart if you will, is with being rational, reasonable, using science informed engineering to get effective, improved and economically feasible high fidelity. I don't have your level of formal training and experience. I have an ME background, picked up a two year industrial electronics degree to help with understanding instrumentation. My DIY and other audio activities let me make use of that. Formally with electronics my level is that of a electronics tech with some areas I have educated myself into more depth with regards to audio.

 

It is my opinion, though I once fell for much of it, that high end has gone of the rails. It is clear to me that the way forward to genuine improvement is not with a tweaker's mentality of changing this, that and the other thing, then listening to it to decide if it is better or not. That sounds okay on its face, but learning a bit of psychoacoustics and how easily everyone falls prey to sighted bias it quickly becomes apparent that road leads to chaos and craziness. The high end sure seems to fit that description to me.

 

Also in recent times I am doing some hobbiest recording of music. That is a rather enlightening activity in regards to music playback as well. Lots of flowery language about what a high end system does and doesn't show for playback sounds like some sort of strange delusion from the viewpoint of someone who has recorded music.

[sandyk]

That sounds okay on its face, but learning a bit of psychoacoustics and how easily everyone falls prey to sighted bias it quickly becomes apparent that road leads to chaos and craziness. The high end sure seems to fit that description to me.

 

You really are selling the vast majority of C.A. members short, if you genuinely believe that most rely solely on "sighted" listening comparisons.

[Jud]

I get the uncomfortable feeling we may be having a conversation.

 

I'm sorry if it's a bit bleak, if you want cheery try a Cormac McCarthy book.

 

You seem like a pretty reasonable guy, I just presumed you were my enemy, because you disagree so vehemently with eslguy, on the basis that my friends enemy is my enemy. I don't see eye-to-eye with eslguy on everything, but his heart is in the right place. What exactly is it that you and he disagree so profoundly on?

 

I love Cormac McCarthy. The mastery of language in something like Blood Meridian is awe-inspiring. "Cheery," eh? Now *that's* funny.

 

Dennis (esldude) and I disagree from time to time, always respectfully and never with anger or rancor. I appreciate how much I've learned from him (and a bunch of other people here).

[kumakuma]

You really are selling the vast majority of C.A. members short, if you genuinely believe that most rely solely on "sighted" listening comparisons.

 

Alex, with all due respect, neither you, esldude, nor anyone else have any way of knowing how the vast majority of CA members do their listening comparisons.

[sandyk]

Alex, with all due respect, neither you, esldude, nor anyone else have any way of knowing how the vast majority of CA members do their listening comparisons.

 

Then I suggest that you read the replies by the majority of posters who do report hearing differences between cables etc. , when asked by the usual Objective (objecting?) members if they relied solely on Sighted listening.

[jiminlogansquare]

I've wondered about this phenomenon, and what you say makes a great deal of sense.

 

I learned about this recently when I became a website publisher. It sucks, but it is true. Trolls draw traffic, and traffic translates into dollars. This is why owners of websites have an inherent conflict of interest with respect to moderation of trolls.

[kumakuma]

Then I suggest that you read the replies by the majority of posters who do report hearing differences between cables etc. , when asked by the usual Objective (objecting?) members if they relied solely on Sighted listening.

 

Even if this were true, as you pointed out in a recent post, the number of members who speak out on any subject is but a mere fraction of the total membership of this forum. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing what this silent majority does or thinks.

[sandyk]

Neither you nor I have any way of knowing what this silent majority does or thinks.

 

I never suggested what this silent majority does or thinks. We can only go by what those who do hear such differences post. The silent majority appear to be happy to read what others have to say, but have no interest in getting otherwise involved.

[kumakuma]

I never suggested what this silent majority does or thinks. We can only go by what those who do hear such differences post. The silent majority appear to be happy to read what others have to say, but have no interest in getting otherwise involved.

 

So in other words, when you said "the vast majority of C.A. members", you actually meant the six or seven members who have discussed their experiences in this area.