Do you believe in Magic?

I think it would be useful to recall how we got here. I started this thread to discuss tweaks that are effective but difficult to explain. I ironically called it ‘Magic.’ With a few exceptions, people seemed to get it.

My choice of ERS as an example of Magic was simply because I had just installed it, and I was puzzled with the result. I expressed that puzzlement and with the help of Al and a few others, we began to speculate about what might be behind the Magic of ERS. Things were proceeding in a very collegial way.

Then you came along, Geoff, with comments that were simultaneously provocative and obscure. I pointed out the inscrutability of your comments at least three times…

03-05-12: Bryoncunningham
I have to admit, Geoff, I don't understand your comment.

03-08-12: Bryoncunningham
[Your] comment does not reduce the ambiguity of your first remark. It intensifies it.

03-09-12: Bryoncunningham
I honestly don't know what you're saying here. Who is the "we" you are referring to?

You ignored these repeated requests to speak plainly. Finally I gave up and I said you were an obscurantist. I wasn't the only person who felt that way...

03-13-12: Sabai
Geoff, I note that you completely sidestepped the content of Bryon's comments by diverting the discussion to ERS paper and by indulging in other polemical digressions. Frankly, I thought Bryon's comments about your statements being obscurantist were spot on.

As an illustration of your obscurantism, I quoted material from the Machina Dynamica website. I asked you why you do not offer open and accessible explanations of the products you sell, and again you completely ignored the question. Instead you did some misdirection by characterizing me as a “dyed in the wool skeptic,” as though my comments about your obscurantism were motivated by ideological skepticism, which they are most certainly not. You’ve repeatedly accused me of strawman-ing you, but your characterization of me as a close-minded skeptic is a transparent case of strawman-ing. Here’s what other folks said on that subject…

01-22-12: Almarg
Bryon… If I may make a somewhat presumptuous comment, your intellectual sincerity and open-mindedness are both refreshing and commendable.

01-23-12: Tubegroover
Based on his thoughtful comments and quest for understanding the "why" of it all I doubt [Magic] was meant in any literal sense.

01-25-12: Frogman
Very interesting exchanges here. Thanks Bryon, and I commend
your open-mindedness.

01-25-12: Nonoise
One has to keep an open mind and Bryon and Al do so in such a refreshingly open manner.

Enough said.

The upshot of all this is that I don’t care one whit about Machina Dynamica. It became the focus of this thread only because it demonstrates your tendency toward obscurantism.

As to whether you are a huckster, a fraud, or a misunderstood genius, I have an opinion, but that isn’t the point. Or at least it isn’t MY point. My point is that, if you would like to have a constructive conversation with fellow audiophiles, you should take a hard look at the way you engage them.

Bryon

03-15-12: Cbw723
Science provides structure for investigation. Cooking the books is an act of fraud. People may commit fraud in many areas of human endeavor (as this thread perhaps demonstrates), but that doesn’t mean all of those endeavors are corrupt. The reproducibility of results is a cornerstone of science. If someone commits fraud (or is simply mistaken), the PROCESS of science (because science is a process, not a result) will eventually rectify the situation.

I agree with this. Virtually any human activity is subject to corruption. The fact that SOME scientific research has been found to be corrupt does not invalidate science as an enterprise. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I also agree with Cbw that science should be understood not merely as a collection of theories, methods, data, and experiments, but as a PROCESS. Among other things, the process of science is...

1. Evidence based
2. Public
3. Self correcting

RE: 1. That science is based on evidence is obvious. What is somewhat less obvious is that what COUNTS as evidence is largely determined by the scientific paradigms that guide the acquisition and analysis of data. That is relevant to this thread, since there seems to be some disagreement about what should count as "evidence."

RE: 2. Calling science 'public' is another way of saying what Cbw said about the reproducibility of results. If there is one standard common to all scientific evidence, it is that evidence must be public. Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box metaphor was a repudiation of what he called "private language," but it could be repurposed as a repudiation of "private evidence." Unlike some other human activities, science makes NO room for private evidence. That also seems relevant to this thread, insofar as some of the "evidence" we have seen has been private, either metaphorically or literally.

RE: 3. Science is self correcting. This may be the most unique feature of science. Scientists spend a good fraction of their time trying to DISPROVE the theories of other scientists. This is crucial to the progress of science, because it means that, eventually, false theories will be detected and corrected. Even though there is no way to be certain that a particular scientific theory is true, there are many ways to know that a scientific theory is FALSE. And that alone is sufficient to ensure scientific progress.

Taken together, these three characteristics are unique to science. There are certainly other activities that are evidence based (e.g., legal trials), other activities that are public in the sense of contingent upon reproducibility (e.g., mathematical proofs), and other activities that are self correcting (e.g., architecture, in the sense of... if it falls down, don't build it that way again). But so far as I am aware, science is the only widespread human activity that is evidence based AND public AND self correcting.

And that brings me back to Magic. By definition, Magic is not evidence based. Nor is Magic is public, since Magical effects often fail the test of reproducibility. And the market of Magical products is not self correcting -- notoriously so. Magic is about as far from science as you can get.

But that doesn't mean it isn't real. Magic pops up from time to time, whether you want it to or not. When Magical effects get explained, they cease to be Magic. When they don't, you get threads like this one.

Bryon

Cbw723,

You say "Science provides structure for investigation" but so-called "scientific investigation" is often preceded by bias. Science is often used in the service of those with special agendas. Science can be used and has historically been systematically used to arrive at pre-determined conclusions. Science is often fraudulent. So-called "scientific scrutiny" is often just an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

You say "The "empirical method" used without scientific rigor is simply witchcraft." If this were true then much of the early development in the fields of electronics and medicine would have been automatically destined for the garbage can. On the contrary, empiricism, is often the cornerstone for further discovery. This is an historical fact.

Empirical evidence may be "scientifically" backed at some point, but it may not be. This does not in the least diminish its importance. There are cases where empirical evidence is systematically ignored by science because it does not fit pre-determined conclusions that science has already arrived at. "Science" can be very closed-minded. It is often used to service political agendas. IMO.

Well, actually it didn't quite happen the way you say it did.

In your own words you were being confrontational and I responded. You used veiled insults and innuendo, and continue to do so. You accused me of having no explanations for my products, and when I provided the explanations you whined about the explanations not being "satisfying" - whatever that's supposed to mean. Most recently, after I pointed out your continued lack of due diligence regarding explanations for my products, in particular the Intelligent Chip, rather than respond in a reasonable, logical way, you come out with yet another diatribe. What was that term you used, close minded?.....hmmmmm.

hi geoffkait:

why do tou feel you have to justify your products ? just put them out there, and let people buy or not buy them.

no explanations are needed.

i think your mistake is to be defensive

you would be better off saying nothing.