Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: New to empicism (Read 15743 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New to empicism

Reply #25 –
Quote from: knutinh on
=But Sir Rayleigh was almost certain that Darwin was wrong based on physically sound theories of the earth being no more than 6000 years old.

What?
Citation please.

I do not believe there has been a "scientific" theory on the age of the earth which placed the formation less than 75,000 years ago - and that was a "weak" experiment based upon cooling (and far and away shorter than any other theory prior or since).

My point, because I am not attempting to drag this thread off topic despite appearances, is that I think you are mischaracterizing science, removing the fulcrum on which your argument rests.

EDIT:  You appear to be falsely attributing a faith in the "6000" year calculation by Bishop Ussher, to a scientist (not sure exactly who "Sir Rayleigh" is - Lord Rayleigh (a contemporary of Darwin) certainly would not have disputed Darwin's back-calculated geological age).  Perhaps you mean Lord Kelvin?  (William Thomson)  He actually disputed Darwin on the age of the earth - but despite his dominance in thermodynamics his "science" on this matter was not falsifiable and therefore a weak counter to Darwin - though it did cause Darwin hesitancy.  Though for every physicist who had trouble accepting an earth older than ~100,000 years old you had a geologist who had good reason to believe the earth was millions of years old, at least.
Creature of habit.

New to empicism

Reply #26 –
I stand corrected.

-k

New to empicism

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The 1 in 1000 audiophiles and the 1 in 1000 sound clips almost certainly don't exist. By now, 10,000s or 100,000s of each have been tested. It is like tested unplugged toasters. Out of a million conventional toasters, how many will toast bread without being plugged in? None!  How many runners can run a 2 minute mile? None! There are things that are simple to observe, even naively observe, and they simply never happen!

Science prides itself on the foolproofness of repeated, consistent observations. Unfortunately, there are some fields masquerading as science without living up to its reasonable demand of reproducibility, and usually tries to explain away its liability by appealing to the short lifespan of humans.

On the other hand, there are some fields (namely, audio) in which a great many people think are completely exempt from scientific empiricism when they are not. It's a worse-than-inconsistent parade of foolishness.

Kudos to the areas of life in which empiricism doesn't work axiomatically, and they don't pretend that it does. That's another form of consistency.

New to empicism

Reply #28 –
Quote from: knutinh on
I agree, many "audiophile phenomena" almost certainly dont exist as physical, audiological phenomena. But Sir Rayleigh was almost certain that Darwin was wrong based on physically sound theories of the earth being no more than 6000 years old. Physicists around 1900 was almost certain that all there was to discover in physics was allready discovered. Etc. I think that the sceptic making false claims about what science can disprove is making the same disservice to the public as the believer making false claims about what science has proven.


The belief that the earth is no more than 6000 years old has never been based on physically sound theories about geology, biology, chemistry, physics or anything else that we would normally call "physical science". The belief that the earth is no more than 6000 years old has *always* been based on  speculative analyses of Biblcal geneologies. People simply counted up entries in lists of Biblical names. In some cases they added bibilcal accounts of people's ages and in other cases they used speculative numbers to come up with estimates of the time since Adam and Eve. This is a questionable procedure, even on just the grounds of Biblical scholarship.

At this time we know about some of Darwin's mistakes and some of Rayleigh's mistakes. We're never going to know for sure exactly what the exactly the right way is to treat Biblical geneologies is because the information is so incomplete. We have far better evidence today from the hard sciences, but even much of that is inferential.

It seems to be safe to say that the Earth is far older than 6000 years, and everybody should move on based on that. The creationists should stick to science that they understand and stop piling speculation on top of speculation in order to preserve speculative analyses of geneologies that were never written with the intent that they be proof of the age of the Earth. The Darwinists should stop trying to prove the Bible wrong, and the Biblicists should stop trying to prove Science wrong. It all fits if you take the blinders off!

New to empicism

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Joefish on
Hi all,

I'm conducting a test as part of my degree course to research any perceived differences in analog and digital audio. I'm proposing a double-blind within subjects ABX test with both vinyl and CD stimuli over a number of genres, recorded to 24-bit/96kHz (audible clicks/pops removed) and administered in a controlled listening environment (studio containing Blue Sky 5.1 monitor system and Pro Tools HD with D-Command console).

Like the subject header says, I'm new to all this, so was just wondering if anyone had any advice/constructive criticism for me please?



Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: Northpack on
You should take note that when you compare CD to Vinyl, you're not only comparing the different mediums but also two completely different masters of the same material.

Are all CD's "completely different masters of the same material"?



Digital and analog audio go way beyond the scope of LPs and CDs. So you have that.

If you are interested in doing blind listening tests with vinyl and CD I suggest the following. Contact RTI or Sterling Sound or Doug Sax or Bernie Grundman and see if you can set up some sort of listening test with one of them. These are all individuals and facilities that do audiophile mastering in both media. It is *possible* through one of these to facilitate a level matched, time synced double blind ABChr listening test using the master source as a reference. You could also follow it up with a level matched time synced AB preference comparison with no reference as a follow up.


You have to understand though that the making of a commercial CD or LP is not a singular process. There are variables in each path so under any circumstance you are ultimately comparing a CD and vinyl made from particular cutting lathes/AD converters and pressing plants. If you took your master tape to any number of facilities to make a commercial CD or LP there will be differences in the end product. I'm not going to argue whether or not all those differences are audible but they will be physically different. If you have an analog master just the tape deck used at the given facility and how it is set up and maintained will make a difference. A lot of variables here.
 

New to empicism

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The belief that the earth is no more than 6000 years old has never been based on physically sound theories about geology, biology, chemistry, physics or anything else that we would normally call "physical science". The belief that the earth is no more than 6000 years old has *always* been based on  speculative analyses of Biblcal geneologies. People simply counted up entries in lists of Biblical names. In some cases they added bibilcal accounts of people's ages and in other cases they used speculative numbers to come up with estimates of the time since Adam and Eve. This is a questionable procedure, even on just the grounds of Biblical scholarship.

My memory served me badly. Instead of going into details about what I do not know very well anyways, I suggest to extract the moral of my story: At the given state of physics at Darwins time, one could not explain the earths age being what we now believe it to be, and what Darwin thought necessary to allow for natural selection to produce the living things that he could see. Some scientists used this as an Argument against Darwinism. Later on, the proper physical mechanisms was found.

We can never now what we dont know. The best we can hope is to make models that fits our (flawed) observations of the world. If we should ever find irrefutable evidence of God, E.T or the utility of hifi-cables made out of kevlar, we should report them. Until that, we should explain that we cannot prove the existence (or the opposite) of either, and those so inclined could announce their scepticism against such evidence ever being presented.

-k