| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I'm sensing a little frustration from you, again, Mr. Troll. Maybe time for a new hobby, perhaps needlepoint would be the ticket.
On the contrary. Reducing an alleged maker of inovative audio products to grade school name calling by asking simple straight forward questions about methodologies is amusing as well as revealing. I'm having lots of fun. Sorry it's a guilty pleasure. I get the feeling it is making you a bit uncomfotable. Isn't that why you are asking me to go away and do something else? Of course you could always make me eat a triple helping of crow and a slice of humble pie for desert just by offering up legitimate test results. You did claim to do tests. Heck you could even do a google search, find out how such tests are actually done and try to bluff your way through this. After all, I'm no scientist. You gotta figure you could bluff me with a little technobabble.
Amen to that thought, Erick. If something produces a consistent effect on the listener then it is as "real" as any other high-end audio artefact. But the proof of the pudding is whether the Clever Clock has an effect when the listener _doesn't _ know it's in the room.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
IIRC, May also claimed awhile back that the sound would not return to 'more pleasing' for everyone in the room till the person who thought or told the lie then thought or told the truth.
Good thing this is the internet!
RG
"On the contrary. Reducing an alleged maker of inovative audio products to grade school name calling by asking simple straight forward questions about methodologies is amusing as well as revealing. I'm having lots of fun. Sorry it's a guilty pleasure. I get the feeling it is making you a bit uncomfotable. Isn't that why you are asking me to go away and do something else? Of course you could always make me eat a triple helping of crow and a slice of humble pie for desert just by offering up legitimate test results. You did claim to do tests. Heck you could even do a google search, find out how such tests are actually done and try to bluff your way through this. After all, I'm no scientist. You gotta figure you could bluff me with a little technobabble."
Blah, blah blah...Unfortuntely, your line of attack, such as it is, has not changed in more than two years. Please try to come up with a new and hopefully more entertaining repertoire, Troll. Give my regards to Randi. He's no scientist either. wink, wink
I agree. Your response is indeed "yet another lame semantical argument that ignores the relevant meaning of words." According to Merriam-Webster, "sound is the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing". According to Scientific American, "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."
Now if you wish to take Merriam-Webster AND Scientific American to task, knock yourself out. I'm sure they anxiously await your corrections. You are definitely not educated on the concept of what sound is, and how it is perceived. That is basically what everyone else in this thread is telling you. I'm just saying it in a different way, see. If, as with Arny et al. it's more important to you to appear to try to win a debate than to learn anything new, that is of course your prerogative.
Two years? I guess the clever clock doesn't have a calander feature. You seem really riled up there Geoff. Calm down. Hopefully that may help you remember who you are talking to. Clearly you have me confused with someone else.
Arny? Is that you? Did you miss the class back in fourth grade when they explained how to figure what usage is in play when using a word with multiple meanings? I've explained this basic concept to Arny a number of times and he never got it. Arny............?
"Two years? I guess the clever clock doesn't have a calander feature. You seem really riled up there Geoff. Calm down. Hopefully that may help you remember who you are talking to. Clearly you have me confused with someone else."
I thought I recognized that whining drone from somewhere.
Posted by Analog Scott (A ) on May 17, 2007 at 11:32:55
In Reply to: Re: You ask... posted by on May 17, 2007 at 11:06:03:
The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks.
Posted by Analog Scott on April 19, 2007 at 08:11:24
I cant leave it at that because the Belts cant leave it at that. They claim to have significant technicale knowledge. They talk about having been in the business for 40 years and they claim to have done extensive research. Yet after forty years of research they seem to have ignored the scientific research on psychoacoustics. When presented with the mere possibility that the results of their tweeks are caused by bias effects they attack science and scientists. Here is a quote from May Belt about that."The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound." Were the Belts simply saying, hey we have these tweeks and we don't know why they work and we don't know that they are not the results of pure bias effects I'd agree that there is nothing dishonest or irresponsible going on here. but they represent themsleves as technically knowledgable and there products as well researched and they simply deny the validity of real scientific research in psychoacoustics.
Posted by Analog Scott on February 7, 2007 at 10:01:44
In Reply to: The Clever Lil Clock...a proposal posted on February 4, 2007 at 19:38:47:
measure the output of the speakers with and without the clock to see if it makes *any* physical difference at all. If the clock can't pass that test then obviously it is purely affecting one's expectations. OTOH if it is actually affecting the measurable output of a stereo system in any way that has to raise an eyebrow in the most hard core skeptic of this device.
"But the proof of the pudding is whether the Clever Clock has an effect when the listener _doesn't _ know it's in the room."
And the answer is...
Yes.
Interesting, isn't it?
Sincerely,
wow a lot of googling there. Why so much effort? Wouldn't that time have been better spent looking up the data on those tests you said you did and reporting them? at this point do you have anything to say that is about the topic?
You aren't going to go stocker on me now are you?
Hopefully you got my possible too-thinly-veiled joke!
Man, I bet that whatever time it is, the face of the Clever Little Clock always reads "The FUTURE!!!"
Must be a helluva clock.
Then I'm claiming beer as a true, beneficial and "real" high-end artifact. It also has carbs, antioxidants and a few vitamins. Good for the mind, good for the body, good for the music.
I can read the new slogan now: "Hear with Beer."
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking this thread could use a beer or two.
I understand your frustration. I (and others here) tried to explain the basic concept of perception of sound to you, and you never got it. The fact that you think I'm Arny probably explains why.
So why do I do it and why does it sound better to me, most of the time?
In turning off the lights it is not the sound of my system that changes, but me that changes. I become calmer yet more focused. I stop looking around the room and start listening. I simply am more mentally receptive to the music. Considering this is a tweak that actually saves me money each time I do it, I see no good reason not to do it.
I'm guessing that things like the little clock "work" in a similar sort of way - because we know they are there and we want them to work. .
You guess right... up to a point. They do work in a similar sort of way as you described. But not by way of the predictable expectation bias theory; not "because we know they are there". IMO, it is largely incidental to whether one will or won't hear the effect of that device.
In general I have no problem with low cost tweaks like this, as long as everyone realizes that clocks and the like don't really change the sound of the system (or fly in the face of physics) but change the listener instead. .
Exactly. Except not in the way you think.
I mean heck, I'd dangle a monkey's paw around my neck if it consistently made my system sound better.
I've done stranger things for just that reason. With success, I might add.
BTW, I've tried and it doesn't (at least for me).
Takes a while to get used to.
For me, speaking of physics and little clocks in the same sentence seems odd..
For sure. What would time possibly have to do with physics?
I believe the problem with the "Clever Clock" is it's too clever for it's own good; as these sort of (typical) responses show. What Geoff should really do is permanently seal the thing inside a plastic box (call it a "filter node"), then stick a garden-hose sized cable through the box, and market it as high end speaker cable. This mod shouldn't change the operation of the clock device, plus you have something to connect your speakers.
But really, I think May said it best, when she wrote: "There is far, far more 'going on' with reference to 'sound' and what we hear/perceive".
Much much more going on in "the environment" than meets the eye.... or the ear.
>>> "The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound."" <<<
To repeat a quote by me from way back. I stand by that quote still. It is STILL unsound to believe that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained !! Have you not read ANY of the two thousand plus year history of science ?
An apparent quote by you, Scott :-
>>> "They simply deny the validity of real scientific research in psychoacoustics." <<<
Why would we, or anyone for that matter, deny the validity of real scientific research - in psychoacoustics or in anything ?
>>> "measure the output of the speakers with and without the clock to see if it makes *any* physical difference at all. If the clock can't pass that test then obviously it is purely affecting one's expectations." <<<
You then go on, Scott, to say the absolute generalisation of "If the clock can't pass that test then obviously it is purely affecting one's expectations" Purely ????????? It MUST be one's expectations ??????????? It can't be anything else ???????????
My impression, Scott, is of you not wishing to 'learn' anything in addition to what you already know. That your delight in these forums is to challenge, even if that challenge is merely to correct people's words. I blanch at the thought of such as Charles Darwin or Richard Feynman, in the past, struggling to get their concepts over and having someone like you constantly challenging the WORDS they were using !!
And, this 'real scientific research' you mention, as though it is fixed - not constantly evolving - not constantly changing.
Even in the last 40 years the 'thinking' around the subject of our hearing mechanism has been changing constantly. Prior to the mid 1970s the 'thinking' was that the hearing mechanism was a 'one way system'. That the sound was received by our ear drum, processed by the hearing mechanism and forwarded to the brain via the auditory nerve. Then in the mid 1970s, the CONCEPT ( I repeat the word CONCEPT) - NOT absolute scientific research - just the CONCEPT was put forward that the hearing mechanism is actually a 'two way system'. That after receiving information from the hearing mechanism, the brain sends messages (instructions) back down along the auditory nerve, instructing the inner and outer hair cells to either 'tune in more, become more erect' if the information cannot be identified correctly by the working memory or 'detune' (lay flat) if the noise reaching the working memory is too loud !! THIS concept then altered the way the medical profession viewed specific hearing loss. Nothing proven !! Just altered the understanding !! It was a better explanation for the people who had worked in loud working conditions all their lives ending up with a loss in their hearing. That messages had been sent from the brain to the inner and outer hair cells to 'detune, to lay flat' so many times in their working lives that those hair cells now ended up permanently in that position - hence the hearing loss. Now, fairly recently, the CONCEPT (I repeat the word CONCEPT) - NOT absolute scientific research - just the CONCEPT is being put forward that within this 'two way system' there are relay stations along the auditory nerve, communicating backwards and forwards with each other !! THIS concept can give a better understanding for some of the forms of Tinnitus. Away from the past understanding that all Tinnitus problems was caused by actual damage to the hearing mechanism, but now that these 'relay stations' are continuing to communicate backwards and forwards with each other LONG AFTER any external sound stimulus has ceased. I repeat a CONCEPT sir - nothing proven but giving a better explanation for some forms of Tinnitus !!!!! And, if the information is carried along the auditory nerve by electro chemicals (positive and negative ions), then there could be an effect on Tinnitus (making it better or worse as described by some sufferers) from various chemicals !!!
I would repeat again. The blinkered and narrow "if it can be heard, it can be measured and if it can't be measured it can't be heard" approach IS just that - blinkered and narrow !!
And, I would also repeat my earlier sentence :-
"The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound."
The actual word 'satisfactorily' can be either rigid (a narrow definition) or open - depending upon an individual person !!!!!!!!!!
I don't mind people genuinely challenging, but I don't generally respond to people who merely want to play 'armchair debating' games !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
>>> "Do you mean chemicals in our system?" <<<
No, I mean chemicals in the environment !! And, I mean colours in our environment !!
>>> "Now as for polarity, clocks or told lies affecting the perception of what we hear my question is do we need to know it for it to affect us?" <<<
No, one does not need to know about it for it to have an effect on us !!
The problem with using the words "have an effect on us" gives the impression that the chemicals, the colours, the polarity, someone telling lies etc are 'radiating out' and affecting us (and with us just sitting passively during all this) rather than 'changes' happening, within our environment, which we can 'sense' and therefore have a reaction to.
NOW, those 'reactions' can then cause certain chemical reactions within our brain which in turn can effect the specific chemicals doing the important work of conveying information to the working memory - but something has to physically happen in the environment first to cause that chain of events. It is not merely a case of someone 'believing' (autosuggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, et al) that a certain colour, or a certain chemical will have a desired effect !!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I'm on my third beer already. Breakfast beers...mmm. Nothing like a Blue Moon in the morning. Lots of Vitamin C.
Note to the especially literal-minded: I'm just kidding. I never drink before 11am.
"I believe the problem with the "Clever Clock" is it's too clever for it's own good; as these sort of (typical) responses show. What Geoff should really do is permanently seal the thing inside a plastic box (call it a "filter node"), then stick a garden-hose sized cable through the box, and market it as high end speaker cable. This mod shouldn't change the operation of the clock device, plus you have something to connect your speakers."
As intimated earlier ive taken the thing to CES in vegas on numerous occasions. but can you believe it - not everyone is keen on displaying such a device in the room. But the little bugger is easily concealed in one's pocket or behind a curtain. A harmless looking timex ironman watch, with some fiddling, can be converted for special operations. One has to do what one has to do.
This is very hush hush.
I don't know May. I'm not a mind reader. I was simply making an observation. You would have to tell us why.
What else can it be May? If the clock has zero affect on the actual sound waves hitting the ear drums what else would account for the percieved difference in sound? we know that bais effects do this. What other known form of causation that could be coming from a clock in the room does this?
My impression May is that after forty years in the audio business your choice to never test your products or other such tweeks under bias controlled conditions when you claim to know that that is a possible explanation is in effect a denial of valid scientific research in the field of psychoacoustics. You would rather assert (without any support) new undiscovered forces of nature than simply check and varify the lack of bias effects which is a simple, established and common cause of such percieved differences.
Where did I ever say anything about research being "fixed?" OTOH do tell us based on your vast knowledge of psychoacoustics what has changed when it comes to bias effects in audio since Bell Labs started testing way back when? What new evidence has come along that supercedes the old? What new theories of causation have been reported in peer reviewed publications that would supercede bias as a common cause of percieved differences under sighted condtitions that disappear under blind conditions? I certainly am not in denial of new scientific research that makes new findings. So simply cite the new peer reviewed reaserch that overturns the old and I'll check it out.
The "concept?" Not supported by scientific research? how do we differentiate this concept from any number of "concepts" that have no scientific support? What seperates this concept from alchemy? Power crystals? astrology? homiopathic "medicine?" and other things that fail miserably when put to controlled testing?
You can repeat it all you want. If you like being factually wrong over and over again. so long as this isn't another silly game of semantics. No doubt crazy people do "hear" voices where there is no sound in their head. But I have already explained the divide between physical hearing of sound waves and the perception of sound in the brain. so lets not try any bait and switch tactice here. "hearing sound" is the physical act of sound waves moving around in the ear and generating the electrical impulses that go to the brain. "percieving sound" is what happens when those electrical signals from the ear mechanism hit the brain.
That is a grand strawman. Cite one varifiable phenomenon that has ever been denied to exist due to lack of an explanaition. One varified phenomenon. anecdotes need not apply.
Why are you telling us this? And why are you refering to yourself in the third person? but really, why are you telling us this? what point are you trying to make? So you brought the thing to CES and hid it in various places. That's it?
I suppose that orange wedge you often get with a Blue Moon does qualify it as a breakfast beer. I think I'm gonna try pouring my favorite IPA on Count Chocula.
Hmmm... wouldn't a rich oatmeal stout work better with the chocolate?
[ back to lurking...]
Too obvious
I want to be the first to explore the enticing yet repulsive combination of hops and cocoa.
I've taken the beer talk off this thread, BTW. Check out the Open Bar - pun intended.
Guinness!
Olde Frothingslosh. So light the foam is on the bottom.
j_j wrote:
Not to hijack this thread (I'll shut up about beer after this) but I've had Guinness for breakfast before. It's actually a great reviver after flying overnight to London!
Better you should read this about the 'science' conducted at PEAR -- the parallels to your own 'work' are unsubtle:
http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html
(Btw, that reminds me also of Pear Audio, infamous for its 'danceable' cables...coincidence or synchronicity? The mind reels.)
But please, Mr. Kait, do not keep your paradigm-changing discoveries to yourself. Psychoacoustics, physics, and I daresay humanity itself needs you. You can find a list of appropriate journals to submit your findings to in Daniel Levitin's chapter "Experimental Design in Psychoacoustic Research", in the book Music, Cognition, & Computerized Sound , specifically p. 318, a chapter which happens to be available via Amazon's 'look inside this book feature::
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Cognition-Co...p;sr=8-1#reader
That sets the bar rather low for defining 'real', Mr. Atkinson, but then again, what else is new in the 'high end'?
From Pittsburg, are you?
"Better you should read this about the 'science' conducted at PEAR -- the parallels to your own 'work' are unsubtle:"
http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html
_______________________________
Park's criticism was the funniest: "You should've used Double Blind Testing."
"But please, Mr. Kait, do not keep your paradigm-changing discoveries to yourself."
Said the man stuck in the paradigm of, what, the 1980s?
given that stereo imaging is an illusion to begin with what is the concern for things being "real" in audio? The whole thing is smoke and mirrors.
"From Pittsburg, are you?"
Lord, no. Ol' Virginny. State beverage, milk. Milk has been called a nearly perfect food - a source of protein, calcium, and several other important nutrients.
Heh, the Commonweath of Virginia. The state responsible for the slogan "Virginia is for Lovers" as well as arresting people who dared to believe it.
Geoff, one cannot rule out personal bias without a controlled test. If those people bought the clock after a listening session that's an uncontrolled test, it does not prove that personal bias was eliminated, no matter how many people bought the clock. Just refer to what JA said about the 'proof of the pudding' or words to that effect.
The 238,900 or so miles is an average value between perigee 226,425 miles and apogee 252,730. The value of 243,495 miles falls within the distance possible.
I also searched Time, Inc. archives on-line, and found no Werner Von Braun hits between 1961 and 1970 that relates to this question.
I'd tell you, but you'd have to be a member of the high end audio establishment, which you are obviously not. And even if you got accepted, which you obviously won't and never will, you couldn't even afford to pay for the lamination on the membership card. So you tell me Krabby, what's new in the 'low end'? Are you knob twiddlers and meter readers still searching for your elusive "holy grail of audio"? The audio component that doesn't sound the same as every other one? Have you perfected the Elcaset yet? I heard that your fellow komrade and promise-keeper, Krueger, has recently proven that human hearing does not benefit from anything beyond mono, and that two channels is already one channel too many. Please forward my kongratulations to your brother in pseudoscientific arms.
>>> "The "concept?" Not supported by scientific research? how do we differentiate this concept from any number of "concepts" that have no scientific support? What seperates this concept from alchemy? Power crystals? astrology? homiopathic "medicine?" and other things that fail miserably when put to controlled testing?" <<<
In the early stages of most research, scientists don't separate out 'concepts' with no (published) scientific support. If all scientists waited for such evidence, nothing much would be investigated. Many scientists follow their (informed) instincts or follow SUGGESTIONS from other scientists. Scientists work with many concepts, like using stepping stones, until they reach a conclusion, even if that conclusion ends up at a brick wall and they can go no further. Or, they work as far as they can go then 'put the concept on a shelf' to be taken down, dusted off and looked at again if some new reports, some new findings warrant such renewed investigation !!!!!
The paragraph of yours which I have just quoted shows exactly what your opinion is of the scientists who are prepared to struggle, investigating past their existing knowledge !!! The CONCEPTS I had listed are NOT our concepts - they are the concepts put forward by the scientists who are working at the forefront of research into hearing problems. All I can think is "Thank goodness you are not one of them. The world would be waiting forever !!"
You compare concepts simplistically with alchemy !! You just seem not to appreciate the struggle research scientists have, that all is not known regarding the hearing mechanism, so many of them are 'working in the dark' - ACTUALLY having to work with concepts and not from already completed research papers.
I quote below from a paper I wrote in 1986 !! The text books I quote from show how much 'in the dark' the scientists working on the hearing mechanism were during the late 1980s !! The text books on hearing use many 'hedging' words in order to lead researchers forward - such as "It is presumed that"., "Such and such a person has suggested that", "It is believed that", "There seems a possibility that", "This could have an effect on that which could then affect that" and so on. So, no, Scott. Science is not 'cut and dried', always with research papers or publication in peer group journals. Words like 'could', 'might', 'possibly', 'suggested', 'maybe' - not very scientific words - but when, at any one point in research that is as definite as one can get, then why not ? All is not known. All is not proven.
*************
From my 1986 paper :-
>>> "The text books on the human hearing mechanism are not a great deal of help. But at least they are truthful! What they do not know, they say they do not know.
For example from "An Introduction to the Physiology of Hearing" published 1982 :-
"The intracellular voltage changes of inner hair cells cause the release of transmitter at the synapse at the base of the hair cells, so activating fibres of the auditory nerve.
Outer hair cells will be omitted from the model; we have too little information on their properties, and are not sure of their role in transduction".
And from "Science & aesthetics in sounding and hearing" 1985:-
"Much remains poorly understood about the functions of the hearing mechanism".
What they do know about the human hearing system however, is of considerable help.
For example from "An Introduction to the Physiology of Hearing"
"It is presumably advantageous for the current to be carried by K+ rather than say Na+.
"Geoff, one cannot rule out personal bias without a controlled test. If those people bought the clock after a listening session that's an uncontrolled test, it does not prove that personal bias was eliminated, no matter how many people bought the clock. Just refer to what JA said about the 'proof of the pudding' or words to that effect."
But noone is ruling out personal bias. In fact, noone is ruling out anything. The skeptical customer or one who wishes to simply evaluate what the clock is doing is free to A/B the clock as often as he wishes; as I've said, this is quite straightforward. Until he reaches a conclusion regarding its efficacy and can identify the characteristics of the changes in the system. The A/B can include taking the clock in and out of the house, using various recordings, using more than one listener, etc. Whatever. Anyone is free to make the test as complicated as he wishes. Heck, the customer can use double blind tests if he wishes, and any protocol for such. Where's the beef?
Also, please note of my response to JA regarding his question whether a person who is unaware that the clock is in the room will hear its effects. (The answer was "yes.") Where is the personal bias in that case, I implore you?
Also of interest are the Lagrangian points for Sun-Earth. The International Sun Earth Explorer-3 was station kept around L1, which as I recall was a million miles out. Eventually ISEE-3 was directed out of L1 orbit and after slingshot maneuver it rendevouzed with comet Giacobini-Zinner, actually went thru the comet tail. Must've had an excellent orbital mechanics guy. At which Time the name ISEE-3 changed to ICE (get it?). I wuz in the launch control room at GSFC for the ISEE-3 launch. How Time flies.
~ Cheerio
Mission Lagrangian point Agency Status
Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) Sun-Earth L1 NASA Operational
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Sun-Earth L1 ESA, NASA Operational
WIND Sun-Earth L1 NASA Operational
Genesis Sun-Earth L1 NASA Mission ended, left L1 point
International Sun/Earth Explorer 3 (ISEE-3) Sun-Earth L1 NASA Original mission ended, left L1 point
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Sun-Earth L2 NASA Operational
Herschel and Planck Space Observatories Sun-Earth L2 ESA Launched 14 May 2009, ETA July 2009
LOL. 'Deflamation' anyone?
How do you know what I can afford? (Hint: a couple of years ago, the wife and I bought a 1600 sq ft loft in a desirable nabe in Manhattan -- you do the math, sparkles.)
I know that the real advances in home audio today are coming from studies of room/loudspeaker interaction, and the amelioration of problems arising therefrom, as well as the expansion of delivery channels beyond the old-fashioned 'stereo' paradigm still beloved of the (snicker) 'high end audio establishment' (the estimable Kal Rubinson excepted).
Geoff, I must have missed your response to JA. I think that, yes, no one is ruling out anything, including personal bias. If one does this test personally and can control the variables in an accepted scientific way, then that's different. If someone can demonstrate excellent scientific evidence, then why not? I'm not aware (in these forum discussions) whether that is the case or not. It's that many if not most 'testing' done by users are uncontrolled and unscientific, and does not lend support to the claims for the clock in particular (and other devices in general) that's readily acceptable by others. It's not the users are insincere, it's that well-controlled tests are difficult to do correctly. I'm not ruling out that the clock may actually work for its purpose, just that the claims are extraordinary and not easily accepted without stronger evidence.
That must have been one heck of an experience.
The two guys I have a mountain of respect for..are Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
To do this:
"Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone showed up to the Oscars in drag as Jennifer Lopez at the Grammys and Gwyneth Paltrow at the 2000 Oscars."
The information missing is that they had the same dresses fitted for themselves that the two girls used for the awards..and they did the Academy show..absolutely baked on LSD.
My God, man. To be that fried and do the Academy awards...in that mental state. I am in Awe. The perfect sentiment for the Academy Awards.
I mention this as the story about seeing the launch.. makes me wonder....well....?
"Geoff, I must have missed your response to JA. I think that, yes, no one is ruling out anything, including personal bias. If one does this test personally and can control the variables in an accepted scientific way, then that's different. If someone can demonstrate excellent scientific evidence, then why not? I'm not aware (in these forum discussions) whether that is the case or not. It's that many if not most 'testing' done by users are uncontrolled and unscientific, and does not lend support to the claims for the clock in particular (and other devices in general) that's readily acceptable by others. It's not the users are insincere, it's that well-controlled tests are difficult to do correctly. I'm not ruling out that the clock may actually work for its purpose, just that the claims are extraordinary and not easily accepted without stronger evidence."
Simple A/B can be very convincing, even for the most skeptical. As I said most of the folks who buy the clocks are not exactly "on board," even after paying for it and still require convincing. But hearing is believing. IMO that's more convincing that reading about some test, esp. some complicated thing (which itself can be very debatable as we have seen).
When a puzzle refuses to reveal itself after an action attempting to extrapolate an answer..fails..then a basic consideration is that the testing regimen is at fault.
Basically, the test premise or test itself and the answer provided..are not on the same page. A negative answer in a scientifically handled test, does not necessarily provide a proof, it merely provides the contrast between the two attempted points, Ie, the proposed problem, the proposed test and then the resultant 'answer'.
If the given answer flies in the face of the large mass of human evidence to the contrary, then it is entirely possible that the testing regimen is at fault,and it is entirely possible that it is right as well.
However, good science also considers that the testing regimen maybe at fault. It may be misapplied or not central to the issue.
Another basic consideration that a good scientist will recognize, is that if the given 'issue' and the given test regiment enter the area of the limits of human capacity and the limits of science to resolve, then the questioner or viewer the observer themselves begin to creep into the situation in a 'Newtonian-Heisenbergian' sort of equivalency.
Since human physiology and human psychology are poorly represented in the technical sciences, this can result in a considerable number of tests being executed that do not have the entire 'test' scenario fully in hand and can arrive at false answers. Answers that suit the mental construction of the scientifically minded individual -more than they actually represent any potential realities.
here is the key point: The idea of logic, in the mind, the subvocalized thought that BECOMES the expression of voice and logic in the mind..ARISES OUT OF the hindbrain..and this hindbrain is an erected, polarized, edifice that issues thought as emotional drive. NOT LOGIC.
Thus the very idea of launching an investigation in the unknown is colored by emotion. Nay, DRIVEN..by emotion-in totality.
Unless the given individual attempting the test is aware of it, this internal hidden emotional drive will dominate all thoughts, all eruption of thoughts and all expression of thoughts.
For this situation to be as it is, it is key to realize that this internal drive mechanism is both smarter than the conscious formation of thoughts..and far wilier. The eruption of and in the mind of the so-called 'genius moments' it is. Intuition, and all of that.
The pressure of this coloration is at the very least as strong as the will to live and more constant than the drive to breathe air.
I have said this many, many times, in almost the same clear fashion.
It is interesting to see the vast majority of those in this thread and all other argumentative threads do their damnedest to fail to understand these points. After all, the animal within each of us becomes deeply threatened....IF this is point is considered.
What you end up finding out, in the end, is that objectivist compartmentalized scientific methodologies and the mental considerations surrounding them, are, in these cases of attempting to discern limits of human reach..they are bumping solidly into the limits of psychology and physiology. This, on the part of those attempting to create testing regimens.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The question, as a point of analysis.... then begins to move toward not being a crux of an 'objectivist vs subjectivist' issue, but that of an 'open mind vs closed mind' issue.
This is a stated point that can internally-emotionally threaten many and thus color their logical premise and internal musing. Thus the individual can -and many times does- circle back around to ignoring the points I have raised, as the internal animal that rules them, which remained hidden until exposed..will feel the air on it's back (like a burrowing parasite that is exposed) and attempt to burrow deeper within.
Deny, deny, deny. On all levels possible.
Instead of trying to deconstruct this mess I will simply give you the wiki explanation of the scientific method. IF we are going talk about "science" lets at least use the right words.
"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."
Do you recognize the key differences between this very accurate description of how science actually works with your interpretation of how it works?
What exactly does it show May? Other than showing that I expect scientists to test their hypothesis what does it show?
"Scientists" put forth hypothesis based on observation. Then they TEST the hypothesis using rigor that is demanded of peer review. Now contrast that with what you have done in your forty years in the business.
Waiting for what? The scientific method has been employed by scientists for quite some time May. Are you suggesting that it is holding us back?
Where did I do that May? I asked the question what sets any "concept" apart from such other concepts as alchemy. I even gave you the answer May. the "concepts" or as scientists call them, hypothesis, are put to the test. That is where the scientific method leaves you, and Geoff for that matter, behind. Forty yesrs in the business and you guys make assertions that would rewrite the books in science and you never get past the first step.
On the contrary May. You seem to not appreciate the rigors of scientific research. So much so that you seem to be unable to differentiate real scientific research from the common practices of alchemy. Or more pointedly you don't seem to see where real scientific reaesrch leaves folks like you and Geoff behind.
Scott, sitting in your comfy easy chair reading Zen and the Art of Debunkery again, eh? I see you've taken these timely tips to heart:
1. Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that
suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and
credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as
"ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full
force of scientific authority.
2. Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery
but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping
infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge,
stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the
name of defending scientific method.
3. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say
with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such
ridiculous claims!"
4. If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant
further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that
"evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary
evidence is not supposed to prove *anything*.
5. In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will
eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of
investigation -- particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been
established for the phenomenon in question.
You forgot #6 I'm also one of the guys behind the government cover ups of UFOs, the death of Elvis and bigfoot.
How on earth did you peg me so quickly?
Pages