Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?
" Science is a methodology that allows you to detect patterns in data." "Science" is organized knowledge, not a methodology. "Scientific method" is the underlying methodology which results in the creation of scientific knowledge Detecting patterns in data is a component of "data analysis", and of recent the term "data scientist" has been coined to described individuals who study data analytics. " Once the patterns are validated and determined useful, then the science gets applied." Rather, once a hypothesis which is developed to explain an observation is tested to be correct, it becomes part of what we consider accepted science. I have yet to see a single self appointed "person of science" on this forum follow scientific method. Rather, most believe that an observation is false when they lack the knowledge to develop a hypothesis. That is antithecal to science and accepted scientific practice. |
I had used psycho-acoustic science in audio with greater profit and impact than i would ever think possible... There is no "science" by the way.... Save for a very general accepted methodology uniting all fields ... There is only "sciences" in the plural with each one field cumulating a big amount of data unrelated to all the other field for the most part... «History of science IS science» Goethe dixit 150 years before Thomas Kuhn.... This explain why most here underestimated psycho acoustic science impact for audio and read only impedance measures and other electronic market design guide... This is the same problem with mechanical control of vibrations which is a problem almost on par in importance with the design of the system part themselves ... Samething with the underestimated necessity of the electrical floor noise control... I just finish my last improvement... I damped my springs grid for peanuts one week ago and with a result which is very powerful and i affirm it, on par or almost probably with other very costly product.... I finished my last diffusive device control at no cost...With a more powerful impact than my other devices save the Helmholtz diffusers... Improving with minimal scientific facts then my 500 system which now sound too much good to be described and believed... Many self appointed scientists here ignored not only the hypothesis /observation experiment i used myself for most of my embeddings controls, but they confused it with placebo delusion by ideological ignorance of acoustic and other fields... Basic elementary facts were my only guide.....And the hearing human system described by experimental psycho-acoustic science.... My 500 bucks system is enough for me after comparison with anything i listened to ever in my life...It is not the best at all, but only one of the best ever in quality price/ratio and it is enough for me.... Think about that...... No need of marketing conditioning of consumers by reviewers or maketers for those able to think.....And using their ears ..... I hope to give hope to newcomers and catalyze creativity....I dont want to promote branded name products....All people did it....And reading that costly products were the solution never helped me....Creativity and the simplest science fact are more useful.... |
This thread is yet another example of an audiophile mistaking his own ignorance of the science for "a failure of science." pedroeb Try reading Floyd Toole's book: Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms It's LITERALLY about what you are referring to and explains many of the ways sound character has been correlated to subjective impressions, and how listener preferences can be largely predicted based on that research. So your thesis is simply wrong out of the gate. Read the book, it helps answer your question, if you really want the answers. |
