Jump to content
IGNORED

Acceptable Responses when Impossible Claims Are Made??


Ralf11

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Summit said:

Acceptable Responses when Impossible Claims Are Made should enlightening us why it is in fact impossible, objectively and with reliable references.

 

Saying things like it is against physics is very vague IMO and it’s better to try to explain which physical law and how the design is in contradiction of the law.

And yet those responses as described in the first paragraph of your post aren't sufficient. I think that is what prompted this thread.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Is the claim that we may not be able (yet?) to measure or explain the differences that (some!) people hear on (some!) systems impossible?

Just a couple of decades ago a person claiming that the faster you move or the lower you live above the sea level the slower you age (or in other words the slower the time passes) would have been thought to be out of his mind. 

Time dilation

(BTW this is not the reason why I moved to the Netherlands x-D)

 

As for the reaction to the impossible claims - a shrug seems to me to be a good one (and no opponent on the forum will get offended). Of course it is not a good solution if someone wants an endless debate (or is very attached to the idea that he has a monopoly on the truth) :) 

Link to comment
On 12/12/2019 at 8:28 PM, Ralf11 said:

What responses are allowed when someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct?

I guess you mean which responses are suitable because what is allowed and what is not allowed is stated in the forum's rules.

 

The answer to the question of what are suitable responses to posts that "cannot possibly be correct" very much depends on what does it mean not to be correct in the specific case at stake. A statement or post can be logically incorrect or it can be in contradiction with facts. In the second case, providing suitable responses is often more difficult and open to controversy, I would say.

 

But it is also the case that logical arguments are often takes as arguments about facts and, of course, the other way round! Also, we sometimes face posts that are neither correct not incorrect but plainly meaningless. Finding a correct answer to such posts is often difficult. Finally I would like to remark that not all posts need to be answered. As long as they do not do any harm, posts that cannot possibly be correct can simply be ignored. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

The "controversy" was a fraudulent construct of anti-Semitism.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity

 

Thanks for the link - a really interesting article. Mentioned in the Guardian article is another twist to the story, in that Arthur Eddington's experiment that supposedly confirmed Relativity by experiment was actually bogus.

 

http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/eddingtons-experiment-was-bogus.html

 

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

The theory of Relativity wasn't accepted without controversy and Einstein never was awarded a Nobel prize for that work as a consequence:

That was just the Swedes being jerks. Other top physicists, such as Planck, had no problem accepting the ideas. From the paper I referenced earlier:

Quote

The first comprehensive study of the early reception of the special theory of relativity was conducted by Stanley Goldberg; valuable historical research was also published by Arthur I. Miller and Lewis Pyenson. They found that relativity was widely discussed among leading physicists in Germany soon after the appearance of Einstein’s 1905 papers. By 1911 it was considered so well established that Arnold Sommerfeld, who had planned to speak about relativity at the Solvay Congress that year, decided to address instead the more controversial questions about quanta and the nature of light.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, mansr said:

That was just the Swedes being jerks. Other top physicists, such as Planck, had no problem accepting the ideas. From the paper I referenced earlier:

In your link does "In the third stage, the confirmation of Einstein’s light-bending prediction attracted much public attention and forced all physicists to take the general theory of relativity seriously" refer to the bogus Eddington experiment?

 

I'm personally very interested in the history of science here, but I'm not quite sure what relevance it has to decisions such as 'what sort of interconnects should I use in my HiFi system?".

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

the bogus Eddington experiment?

 

If it is "bogus," how is it that it is reproducible (and has been reproduced and corroborated)?

 

I am also interested in the history of science, including how the right-wing creates "controversies" where none exist (eg:  Evolution vs. Creationism, Genetics vs. Eugenics, Climate Change vs. Sunspots, etc.)

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Do you have any better reference for the "bogus" claim than a blog post by a right-wing Christian economist?

I had heard about Eddington's experiment being wrong before today's discussion, and found that link. But you are probably quite right and that I agree it is probably bollocks.

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, wgscott said:

I am also interested in the history of science, including how the right-wing creates "controversies" where none exist (eg:  Evolution vs. Creationism, Genetics vs. Eugenics, Climate Change vs. Sunspots, etc.)

 

Isn't that more a history of "Authoritarianism" or some such rather than a history of "Science" (mostly - but not of course all - only about 500 years if we allow "Scientific Revolution" and "Enlightenment")?

 

I mean the history and explanation of the bastard is deeper than the history of the legitimate?

 

I agree with your gist!

 

We don't have to go OT!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, wgscott said:

 

If it is "bogus," how is it that it is reproducible (and has been reproduced and corroborated)?

 

I am also interested in the history of science, including how the right-wing creates "controversies" where none exist (eg:  Evolution vs. Creationism, Genetics vs. Eugenics, Climate Change vs. Sunspots, etc.)

 

just to be 'fair & balanced' I will point out that some of the Anti-VAXer stuff comes from Tiburon, including a woman (who was very far from right-wing) who stated that she had a very fine liberal arts education from an elite institution and was therefore well-equipped to judge the science

 

and then there were the Luddites...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

quite a few different members wish to see this forum return to more pleasant days where there wasn't an all out war on science or its application to audio, and angry belligerent rage posters did not try to disrupt every thread on here

 

do you know anyone like that???

 You .

As a Scientist you should have an open mind and be able to accept that currently accepted Scientific knowledge isn't always  perfect ,and investigate where their is a heap of, confirmed by others, anecdotal reports such as in the  A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming thread, and some Sponsors threads.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...