When you guys start shouting (and most of the time with anger) VooDoo that really only tells the listening world that you haven’t reached the level of empirical testing.
No, Michael. No.
People who call out your voodoo do so on a firmer understanding of empiricism than you seem to have.
You only use words like "empiricism" and "science" to pay lip-service, to give some reputable gloss on your claims, but without actually "walking the walk" of truly responsible empiricism.
The whole point of science has been to come up with a more reliable, empirically responsible method of inquiry.
"Experience + Testing" does NOT automatically yield science, or reliable results. We can misinterpret experience in all manner of ways, and we can have unreliable methods of "testing" that yield incorrect results.
So just invoking THOSE aspects do little to justify your "method."
Because mere experiencing/testing is used to "confirm" virtually every crackpot theory in existence. It’s what the Flat Earthers are claiming as well. They "experience" that the world is flat - hey, just use your eyes! You can see it’s flat so that’s the right conclusion! - and they "test" their idea in all manner of ways. But it is of course the faulty nature of their tests, and bad assumptions, and ignoring of any data inconvenient to their beliefs, that continue to...what a surprise!...support their belief system! And yet actually reliable empirical methods show their conclusions are ludicrously off-base.
A good hypothesis will usually build on already robust and reliable bodies of knowledge. If for instance you proposed that shifting the angle of X speaker in Y room will alter the sound in X manner, then there would be mountains of firmly established theory and evidence - based on carefully scientifically controlled variables! - suggesting the plausibility of this hypothesis. I’m unaware of any such evidence, mountain or otherwise, for your claim that tie wraps cause capacitors to alter the sound in the ways you claim. Which is why I keep asking for that evidence. But of course...never get it.
And when one is being a truly responsible empiricist, you try to acknowledge the reality of variables - e.g. data on listener/experimenter bias - and incorporate that into your method of testing.
I’ve been asking about your method; to what degree you control for variables and how (including listener/experimenter bias). But of course from you...silence.
Someone who understands science scales his beliefs to the evidence, and doesn’t simply IGNORE counter evidence, and doesn’t ignore skeptical challenges from others. In fact, it IS skeptical challenges from others that makes science WORK. Skepticism is GOOD for you, Michael, if you actually care about the truth (or warranted confidence level) of your beliefs.
People who understand this have no problem when someone asks them hard or skeptical questions about their claims.
Casting skeptical questions as "negativity" is what you get from PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS.
What you get in pseudo-science is lip service to terms like empiricism and science and method and testing....but no actual principled adherence to the virtues of science. People doing pseudo-science embrace any support for their belief, embrace only "positive" feedback, but reject skeptical feedback.
Hence they can keep whatever beliefs they have going, unsullied by skeptics or a truly honest empirical method that seeks to prove themselves "wrong" as much as "correct" (that’s what you are seeking, if you are seeking truth).
Michael, your every bit of behavior here, especially to my queries, have fit the very model of pseudo-science. It’s really no mystery why you won’t and can’t answer the substance of my questions.
So go ahead of course, and keep on Tuning. More power to you.
But please don’t try to keep claiming some empirical high ground with lip service to science. You’ll be called on it, unlike back in your forum where people apparently don’t know better.
And please don’t pretend you are taking the high ground here, given the ways your pseudo-scientific evasions lower the level of discourse. It’s easy to play The Nice Guy when people just lap up your wisdom and thank you for it. But this is a public forum so you have to also Play Nice, that is show good faith replies and intellectual honesty, to the people who DON’T automatically greet you with open arms, and who exercise their right to critical thinking, asking your harder, more skeptical questions.
Evading those questions, while casting those people as negative people or trolls...is pernicious to healthy, open discourse. And you will be called on this here, as well.