Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Speed Racer]

12 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

A hypothesis can never be 'proved' in science. Proof is limited to mathematics, in science a hypothesis can only be falsified. Absence of falsification is not an indication that the hypothesis is 'true'.

 

Fine. Let's use terms like "support" and "negate" then.........

 

Tests can either "support" or "negate" a hypothesis.

[wgscott]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

you mean Audiophool 

 

You cannot, by definition, be an Audiophile unless you hold the same set of beliefs as Alex, ipso facto.  Therefore anyone who disagrees with those beliefs has no business posting to this website, and should be banned.  So either become one of the Happy People, or do what ML suggests we do.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

 

A testable hypothesis that can falsified or proved. You left the second part out. To be done correctly and without bias, the goal of the process cannot be to be prove the hypothesis false. The goal is to test the hypothesis to see if it is true or false. 

 

No, his point is that outside of pure mathematics, there is not inductive law that permits you to prove a hypothesis.  cf David Hume.  So the best we can do is try to falsify a hypothesis.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

Amongst other things this leads to a form of intellectual humility.  Unless you can state under what circumstances you would be willing to accept that your hypothesis is wrong, you are operating in the realm of metaphysics and religious beliefs.  In other words, science is simply a formalized approach to being reasonable.

 

Ask SankyK under what conditions he would accept that his hypothesis that music files having identical checksums can sound different, depending on his past history, would be demonstrably wrong.  His answer is fairly telling.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

You cannot, by definition, be an Audiophile unless you hold the same set of beliefs as Alex, ipso facto.  Therefore anyone who disagrees with those beliefs has no business posting to this website, and should be banned.  So either become one of the Happy People, or do what ML suggests we do.

 

If you had bothered to read an earlier post by me , you would know that I believe we can happily coexist as long as we are respectful to each other . We MAY even learn something from each other ?

Michael went too far, and was deservedly banned from this forum.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Tom

 BTW, Calling people you don't agree with Delusional, is another form of Bullying, as is subjecting them to ridicule .

It tends to make some members think twice about posting again, and often  stops others with similar views from posting at all.

 

Alex

 

Regardless of what I may think, I have never called anyone delusional. Unlike members of the Audiophile Taliban, I believe that multiple faiths can coexist peacefully on this site.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

 

A testable hypothesis that can falsified or proved. You left the second part out. To be done correctly and without bias, the goal of the process cannot be to be prove the hypothesis false. The goal is to test the hypothesis to see if it is true or false. 

 

that would be repetitious - the "2nd part" IS the 2nd word

 

you are also confused about things - Karl Pooper has a book for you

[Ralf11]

I see opus set that straight

[Ralf11]

19 minutes ago, wgscott said:

... operating in the realm of metaphysics and religious beliefs...

 

see also: string theory

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

Ask SankyK under what conditions he would accept that his hypothesis that music files having identical checksums can sound different, depending on his past history, would be demonstrably wrong.  His answer is fairly telling.

I thought his answer basically amounted to "waaaaaaah."

[wgscott]

This is an often-repeated assertion.  

 

Those of us worried about expectation bias are thinking of Feynman's favorite bit of advice:  

• The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. 

-- from lecture "What is and What Should be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society", given at the Galileo Symposium in Italy (1964).

 

The point is "being delusional" is the basic default human condition.  

[Ralf11]

20 minutes ago, wgscott said:

music files having identical checksums can sound different

 

 

I agree with you in general (not surprising) but isn't this a bad example?

 

that is, a matching checksum does not guarantee 100% that all bits in the string are identical, does it?  I thought it was only an addition of the bit values or some such

[Ralf11]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I thought his answer basically amounted to "waaaaaaah."

 

Thanks for putting my screen name on his post - with which I agree.

[wgscott]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I agree with you in general (not surprising) but isn't this a bad example?

 

that is, a matching checksum does not guarantee 100% that all bits in the string are identical, does it?  I thought it was only an addition of the bit values or some such

 

Please show me a single actual counter-example, and I will accept that my hypothesis has been falsified.

[kumakuma]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I agree with you in general (not surprising) but isn't this a bad example?

 

that is, a matching checksum does not guarantee 100% that all bits in the string are identical, does it?  I thought it was only an addition of the bit values or some such

 

The chance that two files having the same checksum are different is extremely small. 

 

For the record, I have compared files that Alex claims sound different and they are bit-for-bit identical.   

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Regardless of what I may think, I have never called anyone delusional. Unlike members of the Audiophile Taliban, I believe that multiple faiths can coexist peacefully on this site.

 

We are basically in agreement here.

You however, don't appear to accept, that there are members of the Objective Taliban too !

I also believe that wherever possible that properly performed measurements are quite useful.

I just don't believe that they always translate to what people hear. 

 

[opus101]

25 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Ask SankyK under what conditions he would accept that his hypothesis that music files having identical checksums can sound different, depending on his past history, would be demonstrably wrong.  His answer is fairly telling.

 

I don't believe Alex has a hypothesis - its his observation that they have (for him) sounded different. Its for the rest of us to have a hypothesis for why that might be. I don't have one yet but it would likely involve expectation bias if I did as I cannot come up with anything consistent otherwise.

[lucretius]

23 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

No, his point is that outside of pure mathematics, there is not inductive law that permits you to prove a hypothesis.  cf David Hume.  So the best we can do is try to falsify a hypothesis.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

This is pedantic.  I'm sure Speedracer knows that logical/mathematical proofs do not exist for empirical claims. I'm quite certain he meant "proof" as in sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. 

 

 I have no disagreement with that, which is why I usually also involve others in an effort to confirm what I believe that I am hearing.

[wgscott]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 I have no disagreement with that, which is why I usually also involve others in an effort to confirm what I believe that I am hearing.

 

So if people just said "I think you may be fooling yourself about X", you would be ok with that?

[opus101]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

This is pedantic. 

 

Science is nothing if not pedantic. Maths, ditto. I'd posit that that's a major reason why they're such powerful tools.

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

This is pedantic. 

 

Honestly, no, it is not.  It is a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works, and that may be one of the root causes of a whole bunch of political problems we are facing, as a consequence.  

[lucretius]

1 minute ago, opus101 said:

 

Science is nothing if not pedantic. Maths, ditto. I'd posit that that's a major reason why they're such powerful tools.

 

So?  I was referring to wgscott's statement. Where are you going with this?

 

[sandyk]

Just now, opus101 said:

I don't believe Alex has a hypothesis - its his observation that they have (for him) sounded different.

 

As I have just posted, I also normally seek confirmation from others BEFORE posting my reports.

You will also find that last year there was a thread where several members, including Peter St., Manisandher,  and ACG ( Anthony) confirmed my results with uploaded versions  of "Unter Donner und Blitz Polka, Op. 324" from the album "Ein Straussfest -  Erich Kunzel

[opus101]

Just now, lucretius said:

 

So?  I was referring to wgscott's statement. Where are you going with this?

 

 

Nowhere in particular - just an observation. I'd made a similar statement to @wgscott and fully accept its pedantry, however its necessary pedantry.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

So if people just said "I think you may be fooling yourself about X", you would be ok with that?

 

 I have nothing further to say with you on this.

We have both already said more than enough on this subject over a period of quite a few years.

I would rather watch repeats of Groundhog Day than discuss this further with you .