Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

@djones-   
"Quantum mechanics doesn't explain what you hear applying various goopy substances to cables..."

    Neither QM, nor, "Psychology", need explain that.

     As I said: that's simply a matter of improving the CONTINUITY (ie: increase contact and lower the resistance) of the connection.

    

@rodman99999 +1

I myself experiment ONLY and have bought no costly "tweaks" and upgrades, using , listening experiments, with homemade controls in the mechanical, electrical,and very importantly, in the acoustical embedding dimension of my audio system....

All my results are inspired by simple science facts (Helmholtz resonators and diffusers in my acoustic settings for example and damped springs for vibrations), or complex psycho-acoustic research to create my imaging effect, and also by simple experiments with cheap unexplained working artefacts (schuman generator, ionizers, shungite+copper plates and other controversial means).

Is it not science spirit to experiment like i did?

My goal was not publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal, then i never need organized blind-test like claim some crusaders here...Selling no cost creativity is not selling costly products and boasting about them...

My goal was to prove that with a relatively modest system we could achieve great results at PEANUTS cost....Against all the marketing conditioning, i used simple science and experiments...

Then some "pseudo-scientist" could come here and had come, mocking me, and asking for a blind test.... 😁

Objectivist/subjectivist debate for me are ridiculous and child like.... But i prefer those who use also their ears to those who read only dials to create their audio room...Acoustic is a science where ears are not replaceable soon...




For the science debate i will not add anything.....Save this Goethe quote below, written 150 years before Thomas Kuhn...

If you wait for science or religions to understand your life you will wait very long.....😁

Use you senses and couple them with your brain....

Meditate.....Experiment....Or experience....





By the way, listening music,we dont need to prove anything, only to hear the changing sounds....Those who need proofs here are the marketers of new products or the zealots pseudo-scientist crusaders that want to save humanity from buying a product that they believe is useless...I myself dont need one or the other kind of people, because i dont plan to buy anything soon, i prove for myself that audiophile experience is possible at low cost.... Call that a delusion if you own a 500,000 audio system.... My 500 bucks system is not on the same level for sure but not so far from it in quality that most would believe.... The truth is that it is better to read simple acoustic science than buying costly products...





« History of science is science itself»- Goethe

rodman,

You are all over the place.


First, I’d written:



Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?
That’s right, by more science. It’s a self-correcting method.


Do you agree or not?



If so, the old "science has been wrong" bit is a red herring. Yes, science has been wrong, but you don’t get to promote a dubious claim that isn’t scientifically verified "because science has been wrong before."


And yet a lot of audiophiles (and psychics, and astrologers, and New Age charmers, and people with patents on perpetual motion machines etc) hang their hat on that as a response when their views are challenged for better evidence than anecdote.


Next, what in the world do those links have to do with any particular claim you may have in mind - something you imagine a "naysayer" critiques?


I mean, if you think for instance that an audiophile claiming a green marker on a CD, or a mpingo disc under his DAC, or any number of wacky claims is somehow off the hook because of those links, that would be silly, right?

If you tried to leap from some Discovery article citing a paper of researchers "controlling a cell’s interaction with light" to validating some audiophile’s tweak...that sounds like a profoundly incautious, unscientific leap...the type no actual responsible scientist would make. But...be my guest...show us the leap to relevance.



So, again, try to be clear. If you are going to invoke SCIENCE, can you maintain an actual SCIENTIFIC mindset? Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE.

Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE.

Ionizer...

Shumann generators...

Shungite plate+copper....

These three are not validated official text book science facts for use in audio...

Only results of other people experience or for the last one my own creation and experiment only....They work for me and for many people...

Then, are we crooks?



You are like the pope invoking theology....

And promising to inquistion psychics and astrologers....(it is very easy to point to some validated efficient psychic in history by the way among the crooks, for astrology you dont have a clue anyway)

A simple listening experiment of my own is not an official scientific fact for sure but it can work without your papal signature or permission...

You are a crusader not a scientist....

You are in the same boat that those believers who negate science...The only difference is the color of your shirt compared to them....Go on warring against audiophile, putting all of them in the same bag for the sake of your dogmatic conception of science....

Go on with your congealed opinions and dogmas....

I prefer simple very simple scientific fact , and experiments that cost nothing...

After all no audio book or scientific forum never teach me about my shungite use in audio.... Is this a proof that i am an idiot or a crook?
No it is a proof that i am creative and only crusaders believe with a pair blinders....I am not a believer even in science.... Science is there for teaching us to do more than believing ....And science is there to be used but NEVER to be believed...You can use Newton laws but you dont have to believe them to be ultimate gospel.... They are not....

By the way all audiophiles here are different of one another, labelling them is not rational....

All alleged scientists here are also different, labelling all of them with the qualification of "voice of science" is irrational...

Science facts are there to be used or negated or modified and experimented with..... A decree against audiophiles or psychic is James Randi science.... a show.....