Re: Re: Re: Roy Gregory has lost the plot this time...
Originally posted by michaelab
I agree that it isn't logical but that doesn't mean that it can't be happening for some as yet unknown reason. Unlike you I'm not willing to simply reject the idea out of hand just because it doesn't fit with current scientific knowledge.
My rejection of the idea isn't "out of hand".
From my side,
no evidence has been provided to show that the cables in question have an effect. That many people believe that cables make a difference is neither here nor there, it still requires properly conducted tests to produce supporting evidence.
As for "
current scientific knowledge", Maxwell's Equations were written in 1873!!! So, there been a large opportunity for the "power cord" brigade to get their act together.
If a DBT with the cable showed that differences were audible would you accept that they were real differences?
Sure. If a properly conducted (and that is key) test showed that a the differences were audible, then that would be a very interesting result.
Let me add though, it is easy to formulate a test with "nuisance variables" which would invalidate the test. For instance, if you were to use two CD players, even identical ones, I would still expect you to verify they were level matched before proceeding.
I should also add, that a repeatable experiment is important to eliminate statistical chance.
A demonstration that cables work is required before Science goes on a Crusade to explain
why they work. It is unreasonable to expect Science to provide the "why" when there is no evidence of an actual phenomena.
I've always maintained that huge differences will always be succesfully DBT'able but usually they're so big you don't need a DBT to tell.
The issue is that many things are claimed in the hifi press to be readily discernable differences, and yet the journalists do not demonstrate this in a proper test. The readers swallow it hook line and sinker beleiving that the journalists are in some way gifted.
I disagree. The peer review system or, at least, the way it's implemented puts the balance of power heavily in favour of maintaining the status quo.
I can only disagree too
Here's the thing: no one likes peer review. It's a painful process for both sides: the authors want to get there work published, sometimes largely incomplete; the reviewers have to expend serious effort in diligent reviews, sometimes of basically flawed material.
If you want to challenge "the status quo" in Science, then you must accept the burden of proof is on you. The more solid the "conventional wisdom" the greater the effort and evidence you need to provide.
Bona fide scientists who have eventually come through with challenging ideas contrary to current, well established, thinking have often had to struggle for far longer than necessary to get peers to accept their ideas. Science on the whole gravitates to maintaining and reinforcing the status quo when instead it should be looking to challenge it as much as possible.
Well, then, just accept that Science is hard work. You cannot come charging in with a new hypothesis, simply on the strength that its new, unless your hypothesis has some supporting evidence. Again, the more evidence you have the better.
A GOOD IDEA is not enough...
Ah, the joy of DBTs. 
)
