Do you believe in Magic?

Byron, sorry, my comments above are a misstatement on my part. They should read:

Byron, you are exactly correct, IMO, when you state "A scientific explanation isn't valid because it's intuitive, or plausible, or satisfying."

There are many commonly accepted scientific theories and propositions that have been proven false. They are often successful because they are politically correct. This has been true through history -- the history of science , the history of audio and indeed throughout human history."

Geoff, I never heard a satisfied customer complaining about "controversial devices and tweaks" -- or demanding "scientific" proof and blind testing. A lot of people are happy to trust their ears and enjoy the music. Who would be deterred from owning a product that gave great results but which was poorly explained?

Regarding science, so-called science has been proven false so many times throughout history that this is where the LOL should often be inserted. IMHO.

Sakai, you are correct, there may be some confusion here.

Tbg, so it wasn't Magic for you, is that what I hear you saying? Of course you know by now I had to burn mine. One can't help wondering how many manufacturers have incorporated the stuff into their components and cables.

03-10-12: Sabai
Regarding science, so-called science has been proven false so many times throughout history that this is where the LOL should often be inserted. IMHO.

There is certainly some truth to this. The history of science is littered with false theories... spontaneous generation, luminiferous ether, phlogiston, vitalism, the caloric theory of heat, Larmarckism, etc. etc.

Having said that, scientific inquiry has also brought us out of the age of bodily humours, celestial spheres, witchcraft, totemism, demonic possession, miasma, phrenology, and innumerable other examples of Magic. And unlike audiophile Magic, those other kinds of Magic had real consequences for real people.

As flawed as scientific inquiry is, it is the only widespread human endeavor in history devoted to the systematic detection of errors based on evidence. Because of that feature, false scientific theories are eventually detected and replaced with better ones. Those "better" theories are themselves often replaced (e.g., Aristotle -> Newton -> Einstein -> Heisenberg -> ?), but that does not mean we must abandon the idea of scientific truth. It means we must abandon the idea of scientific CERTAINTY. And that is a small price to pay for the profound advancements to human knowledge and social justice that science has made possible.

IMO.

Bryon

Outstanding post, Bryon. Beautifully said!

Best,
-- Al