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

boxer12

You misunderstand.

This thread is about how science, and the scientific method, bares upon audio claims.

You are simply repeating a request to engage in non-scientific anecdotal method, with zero control for imagination and bias.

If you can pass a listening test with such controls, showing you can indeed hear a difference between a CD green penned and not, without "peeking" - be my guest.

You are irrational...

When you condemn barefoot walking you condemn it nevermind any theory proposing explanation, assimilating it to superstition in astrology and anything out of your mind...

This article of your neurologist criticize some theory pretending to prove barefootwalking benefit not the barefoot walking benefit itself... On the other end a scientist saying that science will never prove the benefit of barefoot walking by principle is not a scientist in my book...

He is more cautious than you anyway....

By god you seem to be gullible.

Yes i am credulous, and very skeptical at the same times in general...

Credulity being "A "and skeptical being " B",

My working brain go from A to B and from B go back to A, with some new ideas about a way to prove or disprove my belief...

It is called thinking...


Exemple: Faith healer....

I am credulous than i accept that it is perhaps possible.... It is "A"...

By "B" i doubt it but instead of rejecting the idea i keep his possibility in my OPEN mind....It is called going from B to A .... And times to times i have discovered very interesting fact about faith healing...Is it not better than your decree mentality?

It is not scientifically proven for me BUT very possible by my inquiring thinking process...There exist for example HISTORICALLY some event linked to some faith healer that really make us skeptic about the impossibility of faith healing...

True Skepticism is a sword with 2 sides by the way.....






« Why do you keep a rabbit feet in your pocket Groucho? Because it is the only way to keep rationality when you speak with a robot»- Groucho Marx dixit

Prof-
FWIW, I never misunderstand what you write. In this case I was attempting to open your mind a little & improve the performance of your audio system at the same time.   

You misunderstand.

This thread is about how science, and the scientific method, bares upon audio claims.

Another distortion for keeping your crusader agenda...

Read the OP stating question....

This thread is not your property , on the contrary the OP suggest wisely that known engineering facts ( i will reserve the name of science for other things) perhaps dont explain all there is in audio experience...

Then boxer is right and has a good perspective....He dont look like a crusader at all unlike you....

Me i am perhaps a crusader also, 😊against people who give lesson and label all audiophiles in the same bag because they dont use blind test...

Science is not first blind test but begins FIRST by anecdotal individual experiment, especially with a specific audio system in a very specific electrical grid in a very specific room with very specific pair of ears....

In an audio forum we exhange about INDIVIDUAL experiences.... Not about "scientific decree" mainly and blind test in particular....

Prof-
FWIW, I never misunderstand what you write. In this case I was attempting to open your mind a little & improve the performance of your audio system at the same time.

Thank you, but I prefer to allocate my money toward things that actually are likely to alter/improve the sound. There is no plausible reason it would change the sound, or any good evidence it does.

I get that you are trying to help, and no doubt now have the impression "Well, what a closed mind!"

But...Do you do everything anyone ever suggests you try? For your audio system, health, whatever? Or do you employ some critical thinking to sift where your time, money and energy are better spent?   That's all I'm doing.