Do you believe in Magic?

You're insulting Barnum by mentioning him in the same sentence as the goobermeister.

03-17-12: Geoffkait
I am fairly certain we all have differing bounds of plausibility, and differing views on what constitutes a "satisfactory" explanation. If we default to the most skeptical opinions, those with the narrowest definition of the "finite bounds of plausibility," how will that affect progress in many fields of human endeavor? ....

03-17-12: Tbg
Almarg, the only real question is do we all agree as to what is implausible and on how implausible it needs to be to be rejected a priori. EEs seem to have a lower level of implausible, probably as that is their training....

The opinions of EE's will differ on these kinds of questions just as they will among the general population. Keep in mind that the majority of the general population would probably consider all high end audiophiles to be at least a little bit wacko :-)

For example, many EE's would assert that all cables, and even all amplifiers, sound exactly the same. Whereas one EE in this thread (me) asserted early on that Bryon's findings with the ERS paper, although not readily and precisely explainable, were certainly not outside the bounds of plausibility.

The real issue, as both of you alluded to, is where to draw the line between plausibility and implausibility. Obviously the choice of where to draw that line will generally be subjective, debatable, and imprecise. For that reason, among others, I said that "broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play." That is the antithesis of "defaulting to the most skeptical opinions."

My basic point is that reason, judgment, common sense, and technical understanding (as well as open-mindedness) need not be and should not be left at the door when a listening room is entered.

Regards,
-- Al

Almarg, I always tense when "common sense" is mentioned. It is exceedingly unscientific. Everybody knows man cannot fly, etc.

I am decidedly unscientific when it comes to audio. I merely have to please myself. It is like wine, women, and song, just a matter of tastes, not science. I am very open-minded and thus have many "tweaks" lying around. Many initially impressed me only to prove of too little value to continue, but yet others ultimately detracted more than they contributed.

Audiofeil, having declared publicly that you have 52 years of experience you'd think a person would be able to bring more maturity to these Audiogon forums -- and more respect. I have more than 52 years experience. I have strong opinions as those who read my postings know. But I try to keep my level of discussion civil and respectful. That is the least we can do here.

You cannot even bring yourself to call Jack Bybee by his name. Instead, you prefer to mock Jack Bybee and use a demeaning insult instead of his proper name. How would you feel if people used an insulting name for you on Audiogon instead of your moniker? You know that Jack Bybee does not contribute to forums so you give your invective full reign knowing he will not reply -- and knowing most people choose to ignore your postings. Because that is what they deserve.

Even if you do not agree with someone you should have enough respect to refer to a person by his or her proper name -- especially someone who is 82 years old and whose products have been widely accepted and very positively reviewed. Would you also choose to demean respected reviewers of Jack Bybee's products -- people like the widely-respected Clement Perry of Stereo Times?

Regarding your quote of Jack Bybee who refers to Harvard I think his comment very aptly describes many people on Audiogon who bring the level of discussion down to the sub-basement instead of elevating it. I wonder if Jack Bybee hit a personal nerve with you. You have commented on Audiogon that others who post here do not have your beard of wisdom. Do you think your inane "Johnny One Note" postings exhibit the least bit wisdom -- or dignity?

03-17-12: Sabai
Ideally, science works the way you have described. In fact, it does not always turn out that way because of special interests and political agendas, especially in the field of medicine.

I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind with POLITICALLY motivated SCIENTIFIC research, but I certainly agree with you about ECONOMICALLY motivated MEDICAL research. Plenty of examples of that. Like you, the corruption of medical research for profit drives me crazy.

From what I can tell, most of the questionable medical research is drug trial research conducted by physicians on behalf of drug companies. Unfortunately, medicine has become an entrepreneurial activity in this country, not just for drug companies, but for physicians. It is a truism that, where there is profit, there is corruption. The solution to that problem should be obvious.

Having said that, it bears repeating that physicians are NOT scientists, either in temperament or training or motivation.

RE: Temperament... The scientists I've known have been uniformly analytical, imaginative, and curious. The physicians have been largely impressionistic, concrete, and rigid. There are of course exceptions.

RE: Training... Scientists are taught how to systematically identify, evaluate, collect, record, analyze, and interpret evidence. While IDEALLY physicians would be taught the same thing, that is rarely the case, IME. Typically, physicians form an initial clinical impression and ignore contradictory evidence. I can't tell you how many times I've been misdiagnosed for this reason. The problem is traceable to their training in medical school, which is NOT the training of a scientist. Again, there are exceptions, which is why, when you find a good doctor, you hold on for dear life.

RE: Motivation... Of the dozen or so scientists I've known personally over the years, I don't know a single one who went into their field for the money. Given what most of them are paid, that would be laughable. In contrast, it is easy to form the impression that a significant fraction of medical doctors are motivated not by compassion or curiosity but by money. And again, where there is profit, there is corruption.

For these reasons, I think that conflating scientists with medical doctors is a mistake that leads to false generalizations.

Returning to audio...

03-17-12: Sabai
Bryon and Cbw723,
I find Paul Kaplan's comments (of Paul Kaplan Cable) on the importance of empirical evaluation relevant here. His views reflect my own views on this subject. I believe they also reflect on high end audio in general.

"...to make a really excellent cable, one must combine technical knowledge with tedious, empirical evaluation. You’ve got to build, listen, make another with a single specific change, listen, evaluate, decide what characteristics may account for a given measureable and/or subjective change, and build yet another to hopefully verify. Repeat until done."

It seems to me that Kaplan is making a case for the value of OBSERVATION. That is perfectly reasonable, IMO. Careful observation is an important element in many activities where the goal is expanding the scope of knowledge.

Maybe this is what you meant earlier when you said that the "the empirical method and the scientific method are not the same at all." If what you mean by "the empirical method" is a method of careful observation, then I would say that the scientific method is a SUBSET of "the empirical method." So you would be right to say that they are not identical, but your way of phrasing it -- that they are "not the same at all" -- was perhaps a bit misleading.

In any case, we may not be in such disagreement after all. Which would be nice. This thread could use some more agreement. :-)

Bryon