DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

cleeds,

Yes, I have had a hearing test. Have you? The tests I’ve been part of don’t tell me what I hear at all. Rather, I have to tell the audiologist what I hear. Without that feedback, the audiologist knows exactly nothing about what I hear.

Obviously.  That's inherent in a hearing test.

What point do you think you are actually making, that undermines anything I wrote?

If you take numerous hearing tests, and you reliably identify the presence of tones 16K and below,  whereas above that your attempts routinely amount to random chance....do you think it's rational to claim to the audiologist:  "I know I can detect tones above 16K and you can't tell me what I don't hear!"
??


And do you not think that after many years of science studying human hearing, comprising audiology tests of various sorts on a massive array of human beings, that it is not reasonable to set the *approximate* limits of human hearing in the upper range at 20kHz (with some exceptions)?And therefore that demarcations such as "ultrasound" end up being useful?

There are always caveats.  Most claims are provisional.  Nothing is easy.There are many things we don't know.  And on and on. 


The thing is, folks like yourself seem to keep thinking you are taking a pin to the balloon with comments like the one you've just made, but insofar as you are making any accurate statement, it's already incorporated as a caveat into what I've been arguing.  So they are just red herrings.

(btw, yes I've had numerous hearing tests, and have been fitted for "musicians earplugs" for many years.  FWIW, my last test was several years ago and the audiologist said, with some astonishment in her voice, that she would have guessed she was looking at results for someone 15 years younger in terms of hearing.  A result, I presume, of my having been in to hearing protection for a long time).

No need to chase Teo’s usual phalanx of red herrings.

Instead of his usual throwing a bunch of confused sounding philosophy at a thread and hoping something sticks, or at least baffles someone, I’ll wait for the day Teo presents a cogent argument with a point, and actually defends it when critiqued. Then a conversation could be interesting. But knocking down those strawmen got old, fast.

But what is illustrated clearly, here, prof... is that you consistently argue from a position that you don’t even have the fundamentals of -correctly in hand and mind.

You’ve illustrated that you don’t know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and what each are in the realm of science.

If that does not expose an underlying deep incompetence in the logic of your arguments.... I don’t know what does.

For a guy who likes to talk the idea of science you keep going back to trying to undermine another’s logic with feints into logic but they are actually your own circular hot air.

I don’t have to argue science and logic and data with you. No need, so far. You trip up and faceplant on the most obvious of the basics...all on your own. I merely point it out.
You decided to try and get personal, so there's some direct & personal -- for you.

teo_audio,

You already tried that shtick:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/beware-the-audio-guru?page=4

(I’m neither new to philosophy, nor to the philosophy of science. So please try to do better than the throwing-philosophical-spaghetti-at-the-wall approach).

Well, just because you may not be new to it doesn’t mean you actually understand it.

Just sayin’ eh.