The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful
in identifying pseudoscience.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack
specific measurements as a basis [18].
Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]
Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]
Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Also.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method
entirely.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...
The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be
useful
in identifying pseudoscience.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and
that lack
specific measurements as a basis [18].
Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]
Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]
Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use
grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Also.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in
particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific
method
entirely.

Graham

The use of a pair of objects that help to define the quality of the
equipment before purchase.
EARS.
If you can't hear an improvement, don't upgrade.
Some people can't tell an MP3 file from a CD. Some people can't tell a live
brass band from an old shellac 78. If you can't, why waste thousands on
expensive equipment, e.g use bellwire for your speaker cables, etc. etc.
Diminishing returns. The £100 gear sounds a lot better than the £10 lot.
The £1,000 gear sounds quite a bit better than the £100 lot.
The £10,000 a bit better than the £1,000 lot, and so on.
Recently I visited a house where they had an ipod attached to some sort of
mains powered speaker arrangement that all packed into a handbag. They
thought it sounded great. Kept turning it louder and louder and saying how
marvellous that it fitted into the small handbag.
One man's meat is another man's gravy.

--
John the West Ham fan

In article , housetrained
wrote:


The use of a pair of objects that help to define the quality of the
equipment before purchase. EARS.

They are vital. The snag is that knowing how to use them is also vital if
any conclusions you draw are to have value, and for results to mean
what you assume in a given case.

For example, you would need to know that a small movement of the head may
alter the sounds reaching your ears. And that your hearing physiology
changes with time, and with factors like having just listened to something.
Hence what you hear may change for reasons that have nothing to do with any
items/changes you are trying to compare by listening.

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

"Eeyore"


** This page from Doug Self gives audio specific and detailed analysis.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm


Shame most if it will go way over the heads of all non-technical and
half-technical folk.

As someone famous one said,

" You cannot reason someone out of a position that they were never first
reasoned into."




....... Phil

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in
particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the
scientific method entirely. Graham

I think the words you are looking for are "non-science", and the reason
you've pulled "devotees of thermionics" out of a very large hat may be
because they are more discriminating and require further degrees of
sound quality than the average ss user.

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the
basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the
compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I
could go on with further examples but you get the point.

On 18 Sep 2006 02:57:59 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the
basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the
compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I
could go on with further examples but you get the point.

We get the point that you're switching target from sound to
appearance, but forgetting to also switch from ears to eyes.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 02:57:59 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the
basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the
compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I
could go on with further examples but you get the point.

We get the point that you're switching target from sound to
appearance, but forgetting to also switch from ears to eyes.

I don't think you get the point at all.

Scott

Andy Evans wrote:

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in
particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the
scientific method entirely. Graham

I think the words you are looking for are "non-science", and the reason
you've pulled "devotees of thermionics" out of a very large hat may be
because they are more discriminating and require further degrees of
sound quality than the average ss user.

I'd say rather that my idea of discrimination is different to theirs.


So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

No. It's the 'pseudo-arguments' they propose to explain in their how tubes /
valves are so wonderful. In fact they're simply revelling in the sound of added
low-order distortion. The effect is well-known and indeed often intentionally
used in the studio as an *EFFECT* !


Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the
basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the
compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I
could go on with further examples but you get the point.

No. What we're talking abou is the confusion of objective science with
subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what they like'
must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any supporting
science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters their ideas.

Graham

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

No. It's the 'pseudo-arguments' they propose to explain in their how
tubes /
valves are so wonderful. In fact they're simply revelling in the sound
of added
low-order distortion. The effect is well-known and indeed often
intentionally
used in the studio as an *EFFECT* !

I'll pass over the fact that these arguments are tired old rubbish from
vague memories of 60s valve equipment and simply say that there are no
"pseudo arguments" at all. Valve users do so because the sounds they
hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound. You just can't
seem to accept this, can you? You insist on continuing this silly
crusade to ridicule valve users who, for their part, are completely
happy with their equipment and have heard all these old tired arguments
as often as double bass players have heard the comment "why don't you
take up the flute"


What we're talking about is the confusion of objective science with
subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what
they like'
must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any
supporting
science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters their
ideas.

There's no confusion - you've made all this up to create a forum for
you tired arguments. Valve users believe that valves SOUND MORE
REALISTIC. My God, how many times does it have to be said. Valve users
don't dismiss science - they are as scientific about the schematics
they use as are any other equipment builders. The fact that they make
preferences with their ears rather than a spreadsheet of figures
doesn't make them unscientific either. And if they chose a piece of
equipment that sounded worse to their ears because there was 0.1% less
harmonic distortion, they would be plain bonkers. But that seems to be
what you expect them to do! Sheesh.........

"Andy Evans" wrote


There's no confusion - you've made all this up to create a forum for
you tired arguments. Valve users believe that valves SOUND MORE
REALISTIC. My God, how many times does it have to be said. Valve users
don't dismiss science - they are as scientific about the schematics
they use as are any other equipment builders. The fact that they make
preferences with their ears rather than a spreadsheet of figures
doesn't make them unscientific either. And if they chose a piece of
equipment that sounded worse to their ears because there was 0.1% less
harmonic distortion, they would be plain bonkers. But that seems to be
what you expect them to do! Sheesh.........



Well said Andy, but I trust you've got the soldering iron on while you are
wasting your breath arguing with the Denial Boyz....!! ;-)

(Me? I've got 'em binned - I can't be arsed with them any more....)