Frequency Response of the Ear
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Arny
Krueger


What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

Alas, that is also the case with UK courts. There has been a recent case
where Simon Singh (a science writer) wrote that some claims for types of
'alternative medicine' sic were 'bogus' on the scientific basis that
assessing the experimental trials for relevance, reliability, etc, showed
their results didn't support the claims.

A UK judge decided this was a libel. Apparently on the basis that the judge
required Singh to prove that the practitioners *knew* that their claims
were false. This is essentially impossible to do if they insist they
believe what they assert. Virtually impossible to falsify the assertion
when someone says they *do* believe something, no matter how daft the
asserted belief. And of course irrelevant if your real concern is that the
belief in question may be worthless, or dangerous, or money-grabbing
nonsense.

The Judge apparently ignored the normal scientific basis of dealing with
the evidence for/against the actual claim. Seems this is irrelevant so far
as his reading of UK law is concerned. Disregarding the fact that the
claims were being made on the basis of assertions of 'science', but that
the actual science apparently didn't support them.

The Judge also apparently refused leave to appeal. Wonder if he was
assuming that would mean someone else would have to 'prove he knew he was
making an error' as well... :-)

No wonder that the UK libel laws are regarded in the US and elsewhere as a
shambles. As a result, other people in the UK are now said to be wary of
commenting on quack or delusional claims in case they are taken to court
for daring to point out twaddle. Particularly in cases where the claims are
being made by groups and individuals who make their income on the back of
the claims.

Slainte,

Jim


Doesn't seem to stop Ben Goldacre (Bad Science fame) - he seems to
pillory on the basis that it would be reasonable to know nonsense. Don't
think he's ever been sued.

Rob

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Iain held some kind of administrative position within
the recording industry that infrequently got his name in
the credits sections of a few albums. But, when it comes
to choosing, cabling and positioning recording
equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things
sound right, Iain has never ever been allowed by anybody
with brains to even try. And, he's lacked the curiosity
and initiative it would to ever try it on his own.
Compared to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.
Impossible to assess if Iain's claims are true or not.
There are so many. But then he knows that. All I do know
is when he is caught out - like over the Tannoy Autograph
howler - he just ignores it.

Agreed. If Iain were a man of truth, then his words could have some
credibility. But, he dissembles way too much.



You guys!

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


No wonder that the UK libel laws are regarded in the US and elsewhere
as a shambles. As a result, other people in the UK are now said to be
wary of commenting on quack or delusional claims in case they are
taken to court for daring to point out twaddle. Particularly in cases
where the claims are being made by groups and individuals who make
their income on the back of the claims.


Doesn't seem to stop Ben Goldacre (Bad Science fame) - he seems to
pillory on the basis that it would be reasonable to know nonsense. Don't
think he's ever been sued.

The concern is that the judgement is quite recent, so may now affect what
some people will be willing to write/say. Until the judgement the general
basis was assumed that if comments were clearly based on the scientific
evidence then they could not be 'libel' *when commenting on matters
purported to have a 'scientific' basis.* But the situation has - apparently
- now changed.

Ben may be happy to continue. You'd have to ask his views on this case. But
it may deter various other scientists and engineers for expressing critical
opinions in print if they aren't a professional journalist. Note that AIUI
the case was directed to Simon Singh *personally*. Those bringing the suit
did not also sue The Guardian, although they published the item challenged.

Note also that a journalist who is an employee of a newspaper may have them
giving him cover against being sued for what they print under his name.
That may not apply to external specialists who write a column or article.

My experience is that it is a common practice for journalists, etc, to
contact academics and others who are felt to have a background in a topic
to get their considered views, or to explain if a claim is twaddle or not.
The judgement seems to me to increase the risk that those with relevant
expertise will now refuse to comment, or give a bland response.
Particularly in areas when those making the claim may also be making good
incomes from the claims, and so may not want any adverse evidence to
threaten their wealth.

Simply knowing that the evidence shows a claim is twaddle seems - in the UK
- not to be a defence against personally being sued for saying so. Indeed,
it seems you can't even present said evidence to the court! Why risk that
when you can decline to comment?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.


You got that arse uppards, Arnold B Katzenjammer - if the claim is
falsifiable, it's up to you to prove it....

See here (for the whole horse**** exercise):

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

??

(Keeps a whole bunch of East Coast college 'professors' in a nice, comfy
job, I suppose...?? :-)

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Iain held some kind of administrative position within
the recording industry that infrequently got his name in
the credits sections of a few albums. But, when it comes
to choosing, cabling and positioning recording
equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things
sound right, Iain has never ever been allowed by anybody
with brains to even try. And, he's lacked the curiosity
and initiative it would to ever try it on his own.
Compared to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.


I make no claims about 'technical ability'* but if I were you and had
'Domine Pt2' floating about the ether I'd keep very quiet about it,
especially after so much bragging about all the 'pro recording' I'd done,
over the last few decades.

Here, you don't need to hear it (you really don't - it sounds like it was
recorded over the phone) - a quick *look* at it will tell you all you need
to know:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Recording%20Image1.jpg

(Just *seeing* that has you reaching for the Balance knob, don't it? :-)


*I have had no 'technical' training, education or work experience in
electronics whatsoever, but it didn't stop me building 2 valve amps, a 3 box
valve phono stage and half a dozen pairs of speakers, though....

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.


You got that arse uppards, Arnold B Katzenjammer - if the claim is
falsifiable, it's up to you to prove it....

See here (for the whole horse**** exercise):

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

??

(Keeps a whole bunch of East Coast college 'professors' in a nice, comfy
job, I suppose...?? :-)


The whole point of falsifiability is that in science nothing is ever
proven correct - it is always the latest best version. For an
assertion to achieve the status of a theory it absolutely must be
falsifiable, although the originator is not necessarily the one who
demonstrates this. Anything that is not falsifiable has no place in
science and is generally only found in religion (you just have to
believe it, ok?).

Iain's assertion is clearly falsifiable, because one would only need
to produce a receipt to either of those chaps for a mic or a cable.
But is there good evidence that they didn't? No idea about that.

d

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3a8a38.965841015@localhost...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
om...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.


You got that arse uppards, Arnold B Katzenjammer - if the claim is
falsifiable, it's up to you to prove it....

See here (for the whole horse**** exercise):

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

??

(Keeps a whole bunch of East Coast college 'professors' in a nice, comfy
job, I suppose...?? :-)


The whole point of falsifiability is that in science nothing is ever
proven correct - it is always the latest best version. For an
assertion to achieve the status of a theory it absolutely must be
falsifiable, although the originator is not necessarily the one who
demonstrates this. Anything that is not falsifiable has no place in
science and is generally only found in religion (you just have to
believe it, ok?).


Sure, says all that in the Wiki.



Iain's assertion is clearly falsifiable, because one would only need
to produce a receipt to either of those chaps for a mic or a cable.
But is there good evidence that they didn't? No idea about that.


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt (or whatever) to
prove the falsifiability of his own claim - that ain't right, is it?

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt (or whatever) to
prove the falsifiability of his own claim - that ain't right, is it?


No, make that the *falseness* of his own claim; the falsifiability is not an
issue, as you say....

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:25:41 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

The whole point of falsifiability is that in science nothing is ever
proven correct - it is always the latest best version. For an
assertion to achieve the status of a theory it absolutely must be
falsifiable, although the originator is not necessarily the one who
demonstrates this. Anything that is not falsifiable has no place in
science and is generally only found in religion (you just have to
believe it, ok?).


Sure, says all that in the Wiki.


Does it? Didn't read, I'm afraid.



Iain's assertion is clearly falsifiable, because one would only need
to produce a receipt to either of those chaps for a mic or a cable.
But is there good evidence that they didn't? No idea about that.


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt (or whatever) to
prove the falsifiability of his own claim - that ain't right, is it?



I don't see it quite that way. Iain made what looked like a pretty big
assertion (claim, if you like) to which there really is no response
but "really?". I mean what are you supposed to do with it? You can
simply take it on faith, which is hard in context because it is being
used to support a different argument. Or of course you can ask for
proof. Absence of a receipt is no good, of course, but it could take
the form of interviews in which they state that they have never owned
mics or cables.

In fact I very much doubt that it is even possibly true - I have never
met anyone with even the most casual interest in sound or recording
who didn't own at least one. No proof - just applying Occam's razor
and coming down on the side of the overwhelmingly more likely.

d

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt (or whatever) to
prove the falsifiability of his own claim - that ain't right, is it?


No, make that the *falseness* of his own claim; the falsifiability is not
an issue, as you say....

My point is that the ownership of a shoebox full of
toyshop mics and a budget recording desk wheeled
around on a wobbly handcart and used for volunteer
work at the local church does not make one a
professional recording engineer:-)

In professional recording, for tax reasons, equipment
is owned by companies and not by individuals,
even though of course those individuals are often
shareholders or partners in that company.

Why would skilled rprofessionals like Arthur Lilley
and Aerthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they coduld no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.

Does a chef own all the pots and pans, dishes and
cutlery in the restaurant in which he works?

Use of the term professional makes two assumptions.

1. That the individual has the formal training and
qualifications recognised in that profession.

2. That the individual relies upon this for employment
which brings him/her the majority of his/her income.


We don't need to seperate the pepper from the fly
excrement here in deciding if an actor also working
as a waiter is a waiter or an actor:-)

Iain