In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**********. It goes to credibility. People who embrace the supernatural
have a real credibility problem when it comes to logic and reason.

That's not so. Many believe in a 'higher power' but eschew formal
religions, all of which date back to the days before even pretty basic
scientific knowledge.

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


If you actually understood current science about how you hear what,
you would know that and and all of the differences you hear are indeed
in your mind, but that is not necessarily a problem.

So basically this comes down to insults and I'm right you're wrong and
that's because you're ignorant.

Bob, instead of interpreting what Arny wrote (and what I wrote about
cosmology) as 'insults', please consider them as literal discussions of the
points. You have yourself in previous discussions said you don't really
understand the relevant science of issues like these. Hence Arny's *if*
statement. Nor does "in your mind" have to mean "fantasy". You can quite
easily perceive differences, but be wrong about the reasons. Hence...

The usual question is about casuality. Why do those cable sound
different to you?

....Arny's question to you.

I take it therefore the only criteria that should be involved in the
purchase of any audio kit is its specification, even speakers.

Alas, as with your various 'presumptions' when it comes to cosmology you
are jumping to conclusions based on lack of knowledge, and - I suspect -
because you have reacted to what has been said as being 'insults'.

There have been tests which show quite clearly that if you play people the
same thing twice though the same system without making any changes they
tend to report hearing 'differences'. There are well-known (to
physiologists, etc) reasons for this.

Hence Arny's question about causality is a legitimate one you would have to
deal with, not just dismiss as an insult.

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

There have been tests which show quite clearly that if you play people the
same thing twice though the same system without making any changes they
tend to report hearing 'differences'. There are well-known (to
physiologists, etc) reasons for this.


Absolutely. When I was professionally involved in subjective listening tests
we always included duplicates like that. It was a useful way of determining
the significance of reported differences between A and B by comparing it
with what the same listener reported as the difference between A and A.

Just because a listener thinks they hear a difference doesn't mean there is
one.

David.

On 23/04/2010 08:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Trevor wrote:
**********. It goes to credibility. People who embrace the supernatural
have a real credibility problem when it comes to logic and reason.

That's not so. Many believe in a 'higher power' but eschew formal
religions, all of which date back to the days before even pretty basic
scientific knowledge.


Theist agnosticism, then. I find that position relatively easy to
understand. I really can't reconcile people well able to deploy logic
and reason being religious.

Robert Winston put it quite well in a recent TV programme, explaining
his faith as inexplicable and a form of cultural baggage that just is,
and better for everyone to move on and not try to equate his personal
beliefs with his professional work. They're two different things. Well,
he didn't put it quite like that I'm sure but that's what I remember.

Still don't get it - if I believed in that type of thing, I'd want to
know why, given how fundamental it is. Perhaps you have to be one to
know it. Dunno.

Just knowing that vinyl and valves sound better is good enough for me,
though :-)

Rob

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:43:37 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Not even remotely. Science is rigorously open, whilst religion is
rigorously closed.

It's worse than that. Religion blows in the wind, adjusting dogma
according to what it feels the current population will stand for.

This is fine in politics, where an unworkable law is a bad law and
public opinion is rightly taken into account. Americans, I believe,
"worship" the Bill of Rights, in Britain we like to quote Magna Carta.
But both are constantly re-interpreted, in the search for a workable
system.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:36:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

That's not so. Many believe in a 'higher power' but eschew formal
religions, all of which date back to the days before even pretty basic
scientific knowledge.

Not all. Most of Utah follow a religion invented well within the
scientific age. And that's just the biggest one.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2010 08:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Trevor wrote:
**********. It goes to credibility. People who embrace the supernatural
have a real credibility problem when it comes to logic and reason.

That's not so. Many believe in a 'higher power' but eschew formal
religions, all of which date back to the days before even pretty basic
scientific knowledge.


Theist agnosticism, then. I find that position relatively easy to
understand. I really can't reconcile people well able to deploy logic and
reason being religious.

Nor me, but there are scientists, good scientists, who nevertheless have a
religious faith.

Robert Winston put it quite well in a recent TV programme, explaining his
faith as inexplicable and a form of cultural baggage that just is, and
better for everyone to move on and not try to equate his personal beliefs
with his professional work. They're two different things. Well, he didn't
put it quite like that I'm sure but that's what I remember.

On the radio recently someone compared the arguments between science and
religion as being like a fight between a shark and a tiger. Both supreme in
their own environment but each quite out of place in the other. I liked the
analogy, religion can talk about morality and the human spirit but just
looks ridiculous when it tries to present the Bible as a credible account of
the creation or as reliable history. OTOH science is amoral, it cannot say
what is "right" or "wrong".

Still don't get it - if I believed in that type of thing, I'd want to know
why, given how fundamental it is. Perhaps you have to be one to know it.
Dunno.

Personally I have no need of a belief in a supernatural god to inform my
notions of right and wrong, though I understand that other people do. What I
don't understand are those who will reject well-tested science in areas such
as cosmology or evolution in favour of a patently absurd account of creation
from the past just because the later comes from a "Holy Book".

Just knowing that vinyl and valves sound better is good enough for me,
though :-)

Better to you maybe, but not necessarily to anyone else. :-)

David.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:41:17 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Robert Winston put it quite well in a recent TV programme, explaining
his faith as inexplicable and a form of cultural baggage that just is,
and better for everyone to move on and not try to equate his personal
beliefs with his professional work. They're two different things. Well,
he didn't put it quite like that I'm sure but that's what I remember.

That's just a cop-out. A necessary one, in the circumstances. But a
cop-out.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote

There have been tests which show quite clearly that if you play people
the same thing twice though the same system without making any changes
they tend to report hearing 'differences'. There are well-known (to
physiologists, etc) reasons for this.


Absolutely. When I was professionally involved in subjective listening
tests we always included duplicates like that. It was a useful way of
determining the significance of reported differences between A and B by
comparing it with what the same listener reported as the difference
between A and A.

IIRC There was an interesting example of this in a test that Stereophile
did at a show some years ago where the 'AA' and 'BB' results showed that
people were more often saying 'different' than 'same'.

Just because a listener thinks they hear a difference doesn't mean there
is one.

I would phrase that in another way to clarify the situation a little.

Just because a listener thinks they hear a difference doesn't mean it was
for the reason they assume. So, for example, it can occur due to physical
changes in hearing physiology as time passes or as the hearing system is
exposed to sounds. Yet the listener may assume it is because of 'cables' or
some other assumed 'cause'.

So there is no need to assume the listeners 'imagined' the difference or is
'lying'. The 'difference' may be honestly reported, and indeed 'real' in
that there is a reason for it. But not necessarily the one believed or
asserted.

This is why many of the informal 'tests' people do are essentially
worthless as a guide to any 'reasons' for the 'differences' they report.

Unfortunately, many people prefer to believe in their own conclusions about
the 'reasons' or 'causes' and fail to understand the science - including
the evidence - for the above. This then leads to the problem that it often
impossible to determine what the actual cause of a reported 'difference'
was because the 'test' wasn't run in a way that allows anyone to find out.

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

"David Looser" wrote in
message

On the radio recently someone compared the arguments
between science and religion as being like a fight
between a shark and a tiger.

There is no necessary fight between the two.

Both supreme in their own
environment but each quite out of place in the other.

They share the same environment.

I liked the analogy, religion can talk about morality and the human
spirit

You've missed the point of spirituality, and conflated it with religion. 2
strikes!

but just looks ridiculous when it tries
to present the Bible as a credible account of the
creation or as reliable history.

One of the worst mistakes to make is to try to see the Bible as a historical
or scientific document.

OTOH science is amoral,
it cannot say what is "right" or "wrong".

Science can give valuable insights into what is the best thing to do, all
known things considered. That could be thought of as a kind of ethical
guide.

Personally I have no need of a belief in a supernatural
god to inform my notions of right and wrong,

Hmm, so you hold yourself up as being a good example of a person with good
mastery of right and wrong?

though I understand that other people do.

The obvious implication that you think of yourself as being superior to many
people comes through pretty clearly.

What I don't understand
are those who will reject well-tested science in areas
such as cosmology or evolution in favour of a patently
absurd account of creation from the past just because the
later comes from a "Holy Book".

The people who think that they can find science-grade information about
cosmology or evolution in the Bible are obviously traditionalists who have
not kept up.