Fuses that matter.

Nothing spells science like Machina Dynamica....

Lol mapman,

A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight & his punishment Is that he shall see the dawn before the rest of the world... Or something like that!

Hang in there Geoff. My feeling is that if it works for you it works. All scientific theories & ideas have been battled over before the weight of proof finally could not be ignored with advancement in our understandings of the observation.

I seem to remember Darwin was very frightened by his findings vs religious doctrine wasn't he?

Why is gravity so weak a force? Why does the fuse sound better this way around? Why am I here? The big questions!

05-11-12: Geoffkait
Almarg, you said,

"The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination..."

The problem here, methinks, is that you assume that nobody who hears the benefit of aftermarket fuses or fuse directionality is capable of conducting a proper experiment. Zen and the Art of Debunkery might be of some help to naysayers in crafting arguments why fuses cannot be of much importance. Please find below a few examples for your consideration...

Geoff - The examples which you go on to quote, drawn from Daniel Drasin's Zen and the Art of Debunkery are, without doubt, many of the unfair tactics employed by devotees of Ideological Skepticism. Drasin's arguments remind me of Thomas Kuhn's observations about scientific progress in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, except that Kuhn spoke from a podium, and Drasin speaks from a soapbox.

While I agree with many of Kuhn's and Drasin's observations about the sociological, methodological, and ideological obstacles to scientific discovery, I don't agree with Drasin's apparent belief that a significant fraction of scientists are regularly prejudicial, dishonest, close minded, rigid, arrogant, childish, dismissive, dogmatic, illogical, reductionistic, manipulative, unprincipled, deceptive, and sophistic. While SOME of those terms certainly apply to SOME scientists, characterizing the scientific community as a whole in that way is a grotesque distortion of reality.

From what I can tell, you have a background as a scientist, Geoff. So you may question the basis of my impressions of the scientific community. While there are a great many people who have more experience with scientists than I do, I can tell you that I've done post-graduate work with 2 scientists at the forefront of their field. My closest friend is a high ranking government scientist working at CalTech. I've been acquainted with a dozen more scientists and science historians. I wrote a dissertation in the philosophy of science, part of which was published as a paper in the journal The Philosophy of Science. So while I'm not a professional scientist, my acquaintance with science and scientists is not casual.

Returning to how this bears on this thread...

So far as I can tell, very few of the unfair tactics employed by Ideological Skeptics appear on this thread. And by quoting Al, you appear to be implying that what Drasin describes about Ideological Skepticism also describes Al. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading Al's comments, on this thread or any other, will see the patent absurdity of that suggestion.

Geoff, you regularly accuse other posters of strawmanning. I would invite you to consider that, when taken as descriptions of the scientific community as a whole, Drasin's statements are a reckless act of strawmanning. And, when taken as descriptions of Al, your statements are a preposterous act of strawmanning.

You seem to be surrounded by straw men. There are medical experts who can help. The first step is admitting...

Bryon

Bryon,  

Of course I would never say or imply that all of the points in Zen and the Art of Debunkery apply to all scientists or to any one person.  I think it would be a fair statement to say, however, that many of the "arguments" presented  in Zen and the Art of Debunkery actually do apply to many of the debates on audio forums, especially those concerning controversial tweaks, like the directionality of fuses or fuses in general. I suspect you will find many of the "strawman arguments" in ZATAOD are used commonly by Skeptics and OBjectivusts in these debates and other debates.  I do not intend to suggest anyone is in need of medical or psychological help just because they use fallacious arguments.  But it is what it is, I am only pointing out that such lines of argument exist here - whether intentional or not.

Almarg said,

"The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination...

Zen and the Art of Debunkery:

<> If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality might itself constitute a mass hallucination.

The general idea of Zen and the Art of Debunkery is that that anyone, even a scientist, especially a renowned scientist, or a well-published scientist,  can sit in the comfort of his easy chair and attack a controversial subject, like directionality of fuses, or what have you, from a number of angles.  From a rhetorical perspective, i suppose this tactic can convince a non scientist his argument must be correct.  You know, the "old science is on my side" argument.  "I know a scientist and milk shot out of his nose when I told him what audiophiles believe."  lol

I suspect the arguments presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery are probably intended to represent those who feel threatened - or feel that the scientific community is threatened - by something that cannot be explained, like UFOs - "It disobeys all known laws of science,  the people who report the phenomenon are either hallucinating, cannot conduct proper scientific tests, are easily fooled or are in need of medical help". 

The skeptical community and the scientific community are excellent in constructing arguments, including fallacious (Strawman) arguments, that appear to be intended to halt scientific investigation.  But Isn't the scientific method, especially investigation, the underlying requirement for arriving at the truth?  

Additional bullets from Zen and the Art of Debunkery for your consideration.

<> Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries!

<> Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)

<> Similarly, reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such were true, we would would already know about it!"

Geoff

Rogermod, you suggest that hearing differences in fuses is not resistance and that maybe we should consider microphonics. I don't know anyone who has ever suggested that differences are resistance, but certainly microphonics has been suggested. But the reality the search should be on as to what it is. Not to dismiss that there is a difference. This unscientific resistance to the possibility of differences, is why I dropped out of majoring in EE.