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

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

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

In article .com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote:
Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ?
Graham


I'm a psychologist - like it or not, my job is to interpret what
people say or do.

And yet on more than one occasion you have attributed to me things I
neither said nor meant. Those reading recent postings may have seen a
number of exampless where I point out where you do this.


This is the typical out for passive aggressive behavior. When people are
called on it they typically say it was the other person's
misinterpretation.

Please read the examples I have given where Andy misrepresents what I said.
Note that he never actually quoted me saying what he asserted.

Have a look back through this thread. If you find some examples where you
feel that I have said that Andy misinterpreted me, but I am wrong, please
quote one or two, giving the details of the postings so that I and others
can examine them in context.

I appreciate that this can be quite difficult, though, as Andy does not
follow the usual usenet conventions regarding quoting and responding,
hence what he posts has often lost its context.

Please also see below...



I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as
the sort of person who would deliberately lie. I said his attitide
was hypocritical. You can't pretend to be the good guy and then turn
on people without expecting some comeback.

But I can hope that you might read and understand what I wrote, and
deal with that - rather than other ideas which you invent and
attribute to me but which I did not say, nor mean.


You either accept that you're being critical and deal with the
consequences or you do the whole nice guy thing and treat people
with grace and acceptance. I don't fall for all this faux ingenue
stuff of "I'm only asking for scentific proof, and I really don't
see what all the fuss is about".

Therein perhaps lays the key to the problem you have in not
understanding what I write. :-)


Do you find that a lot of people have this problem with what you write
;-) Ever consider the possibility that at least some the fault is yours?


Yes, it is certainly possible that some people do not understand what I
write. Indeed, this is why I may respond when someone posts something
that is based upon not having understood what was talking about.

I see some signs of this, for example, in what Andy says about some
of what I have written. However I have not seen any sign that "a lot"
of people have difficulty understanding what I have been writing. I
don't know how many people are reading this thread, nor what those
who have said nothing actually think one way or the other.


Let me invite everyone reading this thread to respond to the following
questions:


Do people think that what I have been saying is unclear and that I am
at fault for this? (No need for Andy or porky to answer this as their
views already seem apparent, but I'd be interested in what others may
say.)

As as specific example: Do people not see the distinction I make between
'evidence' and 'proof'?

I have no idea if anyone else *is* actually reading this thread to this
point, but it would be interesting to see what comments people might make.
It would not surprise me, though, to find that most people lost interest
ages ago and there are only two or three people still reading this. :-)



Let me also ask you, porky: Did you notice that, having read Andy's
comments, I then pointed out that - for example - I was talking about
evidence, not proof? Was that statement on my part unclear or difficult
to understand? Is the distinction I make between them unclear?

The purpose of my writing such responses is to correct misunderstandings.
It is a common human experience that misunderstandings will arise, but
the mechanism we have to deal with this is the feedback of pointing out
the mistake, as I have been doing.

Fortunately, I have found that most of my students over the years, and most
of those who have commented on what I have had published, seem to follow
most of what I have written/said.[1] It may be significant that most
students I teach are in physics and engineering, so already have a
background knowledge of the thinks I write about. But I can see that I
may well write things here which are unclear to some readers. No idea
if they are "a lot" or a large fraction of those reading, but my
impression over the years is that most of the people I discuss things
with seem to follow what I am saying OK.

[1] Of course, this does not necessarily mean they always agree with
me. :-)



BTW I have also never asked for "proof". That is not at all the same
thing as evidence. Do you not understand the distinction? But once
again it shows an example of you inventing something and using using
quotation marks to make it seem as if it was something I said or meant.


I think you missunderstood what he meant by those quotation marks. What
comes around goes around. Don't you agree?

No idea what you mean, I'm afraid. Perhaps you can quote what he said that
you are referring to, and explain more specifically.

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 message
...

Let me invite everyone reading this thread to respond to the following
questions:


Do people think that what I have been saying is unclear and that I am
at fault for this? (No need for Andy or porky to answer this as their
views already seem apparent, but I'd be interested in what others may
say.)

As as specific example: Do people not see the distinction I make between
'evidence' and 'proof'?

Hi Jim,

I see that you are asking for evidence, which is something I would require
of people if trying to get away from the subjective interpretations that
people often present. I don't have any issues with your approach at all.

I see too many intangibles surrounding "high end" audio and too many people
who seem to be chasing audio nirvana giving credence to any statement
suggesting *this upgrade* will give an improvement. You only have to look at
the devices being sold to keep your speaker cables off the floor. When a
significant portion of the population is prepared to buy snake oil you
cannot accept at face value what that portion of the population may say
about anything. I think maybe you *should* be asking for proof.

Have a look back through this thread. If you find some examples where
you
feel that I have said that Andy misinterpreted me, but I am wrong,
please
quote one or two, giving the details of the postings so that I and
others
can examine them in context.JLS

If you think that going through all your posts and correcting all the
alleged misinterpretations will nullify the points I have made you are
very much mistaken. I can see that you feel this is the easy way out
for you, and I note that as usual you are asking everybody else to find
all the evidence, something I'm sure that nobody will be bothered to
do, and why should they?

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


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.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters.

The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend
entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex,
depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue,
you
will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional
magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that
they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them).
In
effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a
hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths
which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down
and enjoy the music.


These posts are always difficult to reply to because, due to the delays
involved, the 'moment' has very often passed for me and I have no
inclination to go ploughing back through the threads to check various
points.

Thus, taking the above in isolation, I can only say I have no argument with
your opinion of 'magazine reviewers' generally but would only say that
magazine reviews are very likely to fall short of the expectations of people
who are more 'technically' capable but, presumably, do at least serve the
purpose of keep less 'technically capable' readers entertained and sales of
the magazines up?

No-one in his right mind swallows the whole thing but many find something of
interest and, oddly enough, I suspect all of us like to see a bit of kit we
have already bought/own get a thumbs up (OK, meaningless in many instances)
from some wattock, whether we rate them or not..??



The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information -
much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or
exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep
communications open, otherwise that point is lost.

The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have
no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the
specific case.


Much of what we read is not *information* in the strictest sense, but I
still say it's as much the responsibility of the informee to ensure he
understands what the informer is trying to say when statements are made in a
general 'conversation', as in this group. Demanding certain 'standards be
met' is only another way of driving off people who share some interest in
the hobby, albeit it at a less technical level, IMO....

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


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.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters.

The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend
entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex,
depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue, you
will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional
magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that
they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them). In
effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a
hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths
which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down
and enjoy the music.

The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information -
much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or
exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep
communications open, otherwise that point is lost.


They are either lying or they are getting it right. I have only caught
one reviewer lying n an article but he was pimping DBTs at the time.
That is a bit ironic don't you think?



The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have
no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the
specific case.
..

I'm not buying your semantical argument. A subjective review is
information whether you like it or not the reader is *informed* on the
reviewers subjective impressions.


Scott

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
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.

Not really. If they have any experience they know a certain subset will
always be nay-sayers. Personally I would just find it amusing if there
weren't the anti-science bull**** tied to it.




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.


Practically no such people exist IMO. There are people who accept
opinions as aopinions and people who dont accept subjective opinions
about anything they think should have no sonic character of it's own.
True open minds are pretty rare.




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.


There's evidence and there is evidence. So far I have yet to see
anything rise above the level of anecdotal evidence. All I see are guys
like you picking and chosing their favored anedotes and calling it
scientific. No thanks. That is truly anti-science.






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.

**** Out of Luck



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.


Yet you are no different. Sadly it seems you do not see this reality.


Scott