Do you believe in Magic?

Almaty said,

"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."

While EEs by training should have no trouble with many audio related issuses, the wide wide world of controversial tweaks presents different problems for them to get their heads around, as it were. I suspect even ERS paper may give some EEs conniptions, since its effects are so unpredictable. But when an EE wonders into the world of other controversial tweaks, it is often the case that the devices do not lend themselves to easy analysis by those with a strong electronics and engineering background. I actually would not place ERS paper in the same category as the Tice Clock, Mpingo Discs, the Green Pen, Schumann frequency generator, intelligent chip, Demagnetizing and ionization of CDs and LPs, quartz crystals and Silver Rainbow Foil. This is the big paradigm shift that has occurred - we can no longer rely (exclusively) on what we learned in engineering school to correctly assess the "plausibility" of many of these newfangled devices, the operational mechanisms of which appear to lie outside of the relative comfort of the concepts and mathematical formulas found in EE textbooks, or in any textbooks! This is actually the reason these things are called controversial, and why they stir up such, uh, controversy. :-)

Bryon,
When you say "the corruption of medical research for profit" you hit the nail on the head. Medicine has become corrupted by entrepreneurial activity on the part of medical practitioners and pharmaceutical companies. So-called double blind testing can easily be skewed to reach pre-determined results.

The politics of medicine enters the picture regarding many issues. One of the most prominent examples of this is the farce of the ADA calling mercury fillings silver amalgams to avoid legal liability that would be incurred by the ADA and its supporting cast at the FDA. The legal liability has been estimated to be in the area of 3 trillion dollars. Trillion not billion.

"Moms Against Mercury" won a lawsuit against the FDA over this (see autism and ADD) in 2008 but it was conveniently "overturned" by the very same FDA in 2009. Charlie Brown was the courageous lawyer for "Moms Against Mercury".

The ADA turns the most powerful neurotoxin on the planet -- mercury -- into a "controversy" by putting the onus of proof on those who "claim" mercury is toxic to prove that it is in fact toxic. Then they turn science on its head in mercury's defense. In the dental office it is considered deadly -- in the mouth it miraculously becomes neutralized by "amalgamating" it with 35% silver and other metals.

So-called silver amalgam fillings are 50% mercury. They should be called what they are -- mercury fillings. But the ADA tells dentists if they mention the word mercury to a patient they can have their license revoked. This is science in the service of politics and the almighty dollar. The ADA is a revolving door to the FDA. The FDA's dental devision is chock full of former employees of the ADA. This is a prime example of the politics of medicine. There is no conflict of interest. There is one one single interest. And it is not the health of the patient.

Bryon, you note that "Typically, physicians form an initial clinical impression and ignore contradictory evidence." Once again, you hit the nail on the head. The fact is that mercury is the most powerful neurotoxin know to man. The fact is that physicians -- especially neurologists -- never rule our mercury as a cause neurological disease. The whole "scientific" process of "ruling out" which is supposed to be the basis of the diagnostic process is clearly selective in the field of medicine. So-called medical science is essentially politically and financially motivated.

I agree that "conflating scientists with medical doctors is a mistake". There are good scientists and there are good doctors. It is the medical system that is corrupt and that co-opts the medical profession from medical school right down the line.

Returning to audio, I believe what Paul Kaplan was commenting on was not only the necessity for observation, but also on the fact that not everything in audio is measurable. I find it interesting that there have been a number of instances of this recently in Audioland.

John Atkinson of Stereophile has been questioned regarding two of his "measurement" sessions that were contradicted by the reviewers' observations. The two instances I am talking about refer to the April 2011 Stereophile review of the Playback Designs MPS-5 and the recent Stereophile review of the AMR-DP-777. There are many more instances of this dichotomy but these two examples stand out in my mind as good examples of the ear being unsupported by or contradicted by technical measurements. It could be a case of one or the other -- or both the above.

Your interpretation of my remarks is correct: "the scientific method is a SUBSET of "the empirical method." I appreciate your comments.

Audiofeil,
If you were referring to Geoff and not Jack Bybee my sincere apologies for following the wrong tangent on this string.

Audiofeil, I sent a sincere apology. You could have been gracious. Instead you have chosen to be spiteful -- and inaccurate. Pity.

B C - the supermassive object responsible for bending the light is not a star but a supermassive black hole, like the one in the center of our galaxy, or a collection of black holes, things of that nature. Even a very large star doesn't have nearly the mass/gravity for the effect to show up significantly.

Yes, It would be nice to get a third party verification of some of my products. I think that would just swell. Whom do you recommend? NASA, DARPA, Harvard. Oh, even better - AES. Lol. Are you volunteering?

Tootles

Bryoncunningham, you say "I respectfully disagree with you, Tbg, that we all need to agree on where to locate the line between what is plausible and implausible. That is partly because, as Al points out, the line is subjective, debatable, and imprecise." Perhaps I was too subtle, I totally agree with you. Implausible is a vicious concept not unlike common sense. Both are very unscientific. Were we really a science, this would be very serious.