Why "accuracy"?
 

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
I am sure that the improvement is measurable. And if not, I would be
the first to admit that it could well be my imagination. Some
artifacts are pretty subtle, and so may be around the margins of
measurability. These were definitely definite to my hearing... so well
"inside" the margins. If not measurable then imagined for sure given
my perceived difference.

Thank you. Now, imagine if all the people Arny argues with, were
willing to make such a forthright admission.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 8, 1:51 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Thank you. Now, imagine if all the people Arny argues with, were
willing to make such a forthright admission.

Gold double-eagles to Krispy-Kreme donuts it would not make a damned
bit of difference to Mr. Krueger. Unless and until he were given the
last word.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

On 7 Sep, 22:21, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?



Arny, you should know better than anyone else, **** flows downhill.

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 7, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

s.com...

On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or
have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?

Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be.

OK, let's see whose ox gets gored by that criteria?

Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go).

Futhermore, every engineering student has personally done numerous
experiements that tested Newton's laws. Therefore according to your
definition Peter, Newton's Laws are not holy writ, at least for your typical
graduate engineer.

It turns out that if you do any serious study of communications engineering,
you will probably do lab experiments that are based on Information Theory.
Therefore according to your definition Peter, Information Theory and
Shannon's Law is not holy writ, at least for people such as myself who have
been engaged in detailed study of them.


And then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.

Wrong again. Einstein's adjustements to Newton's laws were not arrived at by
questioning Newton's laws. The fact that there are relativistic adjustements
to Newton's laws comes from the fact that Relativity is an adjustment to
time and space, and Newton's laws are based on time and space being
constant.

Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
progress in this world.

All progress in this world is so dependent on the basic laws and
principles
of science and technology that anybody who acts on their opinions in
violation of them is doomed to failure.

Evidently you are not familiar with Clarke's Laws.

LOL! I read a fair amout of Clarke's work when the ink was hardly dry.
However Peter, you cite of Clarke's laws in the midst of a discusison of
scientific laws and theories such as Newton's, Einstein's, and Shannons'
shows that you don't know the difference between science and science
fiction.

Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
responsible for much pain in this world.

People who act in contradiction with the basic laws and principles of
science would be responsible for far more pain, were not the basic laws
and
principles to stop them in their tracks.

Peter has no response.

I claim neither aptitude, but
I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.

So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?

Where would you get this?

Your own interposition of the concept of "Holy Writ" in the midst of a
discussion that was started, based on, and ended with a discussion of
Shannon;s Information Theory.

Again, it may be tested and proven.

Doing so is simply a good lab exercise for people who are seriously studying
communications.

As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.

So what?

And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
based on new, additional, or better information.

Apparently not often enough Peter, or you wouldn't be the center of this
public debacle you've gotten yourself into.

Peter has no response.

As it applies to
Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
me) ways of doing things.

Apparently Peter, you don't learn well enough! Your recent bogus musings
about Information Theory being a case in point.

Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Thank you Peter. I sincerily hope that you will properly inform yourself on
these topics.

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

s.com...

On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or
have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine,
not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy
Writ"?

Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be. Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go). And
then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.


All scientific facts are provisional. If you understand what science is,
you understand
that. And further, it's better for scientific claims to be testable, than
not. And untestable
claim about hte natural world is arguably not scientific at all.

However, it isn't possible to *personally* test every scientific fact --
nor necessary
to reinvent the wheel every day. So, does that make belief in any given
fact, an example of accepting 'holy writ' (I refuse to indulge your
passion for
capitalization, sorry).


So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?

Where would you get this? Again, it may be tested and proven. As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.

And what, in audio, cannot be 'tested and proven'?

Taking a slight liberty with your obvious meaning Steven: ;-)

Many of the claims in the High End audio press, editorial and advertising
simply defy being tested and proven. A tremendous number of the claims of
audible differences, even profound audible differences, similarly defy being
tested and proven.

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 8, 6:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Thank you Peter. I sincerily hope that you will properly inform yourself on
these topics.

Arny:

What I am writing is that even that bastion of Holy Writ, the Roman
Catholic Church made exceptions for those whom they deemed Invincibly
Ignorant. I make that same exception for you.

There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.

Name them, please.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Why "accuracy"?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

Many of the claims in the High End audio press, editorial and advertising
simply defy being tested and proven. A tremendous number of the claims of
audible differences, even profound audible differences, similarly defy being
tested and proven.




These improbable intangibles occur in all religions.

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny:
There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.
Name them, please.


The first is pretty obvious : Arguing with fools.


MrT.

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 8, 6:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Thank you Peter. I sincerily hope that you will properly inform yourself
on
these topics.

Arny:

What I am writing is that even that bastion of Holy Writ, the Roman
Catholic Church made exceptions for those whom they deemed Invincibly
Ignorant. I make that same exception for you.

There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.

Name them, please.

Sorry Peter, but claiming to read minds is not one of my faults. If you've
got something to say - say it.

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny:
There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.
Name them, please.


The first is pretty obvious : Arguing with fools.

Agreed. This recent interchange with Wieck has been quite disturbing - I had
more respect for him in the very recent past.