In article , Malcolm
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:07:33 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is
anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific
"fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to
agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we
are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an
overblown faith in technology.

Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing
trumps scientific measurement and knowledge.


We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I
am.

Actually, you were also presenting your opinions as if they were unarguable
'fact' and stating your beliefs about the nature of the "knowledge of
science".

So far as I know, the scientific *evidence* wrt cables is in accord with

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...kracables.html

and

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/cables/lscables.html

and that whenever a well controlled comparison has been done, no-one has
been able to distinguish one cable from another apart from the fairly well
understood exceptions of the kinds noted in the above.

As you say, 'science' works on the basis that our understanding is
'provisional' and may change *when we have new and reliable evidence*. But
that does not mean we ignore the evidence we have, and 'science' bases
views on what evidence we have, taking its assessed reliability into
account.

Merry Christmas, :-)

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html