In article . com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what
they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference
with

respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you
seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously**

I thought of exactly that theoretical distinction and pondered it for a
while, but in practice I don't think it makes much difference. "What you
say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as a
personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious
intent.

Strange that you regard such a distinction as "theoretical"... I can't
recall who wrote what you quote above, and you seem to have removed the
context, but the difference seems both clear, and significant, to me.

I have repeatedly said is that we can't tell if a claim is worth "taking
seriously" *unless* we have the relevant evidence/details upon which what
was said is based. We can then judge it on that basis. Not simply by
someone having made an assertion.

Thus I am trying to deal with the reasons people may have for what they
say, not with who says them. Yet from what you say, this distinction
is "theoretical" so far as you are concerned.

Let's be a bit more obvious - let's turn it round then. Let me say to
Jim "Alas, Jim, once again you continue to misunderstand me, and I leave
it to others to decide whether your persistent requests for scientific
evidence - where it is inappropriate or cannot be provided - are worth
taking seriously or not"

How does this sound to you - a) dismissive b) friendly


Perhaps, Andy, you can give one or two specific examples from this
thread where I have misunderstood you. Please do so by giving the
specific references so others can confirm that what you quote is
as you say, and can check the context for themselves. I and others
can then use this to see if I am misunderstanding you or not.

I am rather less concerned with trying to guess if what you wrote
above was either "dismissive" or "friendly", than with if it
has any basis in evidence, as distinct from being an invention or
misunderstanding on your part.

BTW I am quite happy to leave others to decide for themselves, as
you suggest. :-)


Slainte,

Jim

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

Andy Evans wrote:

How does this sound to you -
a) dismissive
b) friendly

Bifurcation fallacy.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

In article , APR
wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking
seriously is being dismissive, then I come back to saying you're in
denial. And I say again, you won't change because you don't see this
and you will systematically continue as you have done, despite the
fact that obviously there are people who object to not being taken
seriously when what they are doing is genuinely and in good faith
providing the sort of comparative listening data that virtually
everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business.

Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what
they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference
with respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you
seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously**

You put your finger on the key issue so far as I am concerned. The problem
I keep addressing is that in order to decide if a report/claim/assertion is
reliable we may need some assessable evidence and details of how the claim
was arrived at by the claimant.

This is nothing to do with doubting the honesty of the person making the
claim so far as I am concerned. I see no reason to feel that Andy (and
others) are knowingly saying falsehoods.

I have simply seen too many cases where what people claim turns out to be
wrong. This may be because a phenomenon does not exist in some cases. But
in others it be because they have misinterpreted an experience which is
quite real and repeatable - but did not occur for the reasons they
assumed. Thus some observations may be correctly reported whilst the
causes assigned to them are not.

Slainte,

Jim

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , APR
wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking
seriously is being dismissive, then I come back to saying you're in
denial. And I say again, you won't change because you don't see this
and you will systematically continue as you have done, despite the
fact that obviously there are people who object to not being taken
seriously when what they are doing is genuinely and in good faith
providing the sort of comparative listening data that virtually
everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business.

Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what
they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference
with respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you
seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously**

You put your finger on the key issue so far as I am concerned. The problem
I keep addressing is that in order to decide if a report/claim/assertion is
reliable we may need some assessable evidence and details of how the claim
was arrived at by the claimant.

This is nothing to do with doubting the honesty of the person making the
claim so far as I am concerned. I see no reason to feel that Andy (and
others) are knowingly saying falsehoods.

I have simply seen too many cases where what people claim turns out to be
wrong.


Really? Wrong in what way? How do you know they were wrong?




This may be because a phenomenon does not exist in some cases. But
in others it be because they have misinterpreted an experience which is
quite real and repeatable - but did not occur for the reasons they
assumed. Thus some observations may be correctly reported whilst the
causes assigned to them are not.


Can you provide us with the evidence to support this claim?


Scott

Andy Evans wrote:

What you then do is invoke
"others" (your exact word above, so let's not have any stuff about
being misrepresented) and collectively accuse the person of
communicating in a way that is not "worth taking seriously" (your
exact words).

Careful on that thin ice, Andy. His exact words were...

---------------------------------------
Just as it is up to others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously
or not.
---------------------------------------

The thing being taken seriously or not is the claim, and not the claimant's
way of communicating it (or anything else).


If you don't think that telling people they're not
worth taking seriously is being dismissive, ...

Not the people, the *claim*.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

If you don't think that telling people they're not
worth taking seriously is being dismissive, ...

Not the people, the *claim*.

So in your opinion
a) Bill Clinton's claim that "I did not have sex with that woman..."

Has nothing to do with
b) Bill Clinton can not be taken seriously.

Andy Evans wrote:

Not the people, the *claim*.

So in your opinion
a) Bill Clinton's claim that "I did not have sex with that woman..."

Has nothing to do with
b) Bill Clinton can not be taken seriously.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Jim said that a claim may or may not be taken seriously. In the space of two
sentences, you took that to refer to the way that a person communicates, and
to people themselves. What part of "claim" means "the way a person
comminicates", or "people"?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

In article , Wally
wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:

What you then do is invoke "others" (your exact word above, so let's
not have any stuff about being misrepresented) and collectively accuse
the person of communicating in a way that is not "worth taking
seriously" (your exact words).

Careful on that thin ice, Andy. His exact words were...

--------------------------------------- Just as it is up to others to
decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.
---------------------------------------

The thing being taken seriously or not is the claim, and not the
claimant's way of communicating it (or anything else).

Indeed.


If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking
seriously is being dismissive, ...

Not the people, the *claim*.

Indeed.

Slainte,

Jim

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"APR" wrote in message
...


I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue
for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide
something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to
cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad
experience, and are use to working with facts.


Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real
or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be
instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles*
and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical
types' here to find out what point such a person is making without
expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points
without the frustration you mention.

The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable
evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say.
This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having
no assessable information.


Actually that is *your* problem not *the* problem. The person making
the claim has no problem here.




Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to
give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide
if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.


Yes, and since most audiophiles are busy enjoying their systems rather
than gathering evidence those who demand evidence to support claims are
SOL.

Scott

In article .com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:



The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no
assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what
they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may
be, but of having no assessable information.


Actually that is *your* problem not *the* problem. The person making the
claim has no problem here.

The claimant has a problem if they want readers to take what they say
seriously, but they do not due to the lack of evidence.

Anyone who wants to take a claim seriously may have a problem if they want
to base their assessment on evidence/details that the claimant won't
provide.

Of course, anyone who does not care if an assertion has any basis in
evidence may not feel there is a problem. That is their choice.



Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are
willing to give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to
others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.


Yes, and since most audiophiles are busy enjoying their systems rather
than gathering evidence those who demand evidence to support claims are
SOL.

No idea what 'SOL' means, I'm afraid.

I have no expectation that "most audiophiles" would provide any evidence
or details at all. Most of them do not appear in magazines or on usenet,
making assertions which others may then want to read and consider.

The curio is that some people *do* make assertions, but then won't provide
evidence/details which allow what they say to be judged as anything more
that an assertion.

Slainte,

Jim

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