You are here

Log in or register to post comments
geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

"In performance art like this it is often difficult to discern what is real and what is not. Reality can take absurd form and well crafted parody can fool alomst anyone.

Case in point.

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

Having worked with all the parties involved I'm pretty sure I know the truth about this one."

Only their hairdresser knows for sure.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
"In performance art like this it is often difficult to discern what is real and what is not. Reality can take absurd form and well crafted parody can fool alomst anyone.

Case in point.

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

Having worked with all the parties involved I'm pretty sure I know the truth about this one."

Only their hairdresser knows for sure.

I never asked her.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "May, audiology engineering for you is something based on oral tradition? Audiology is all based on hearsay?" <<<

I give it the title it was given in the hospital - "The Audiology Department" !!! - i.e the department dealing with hearing tests, hearing aids etc, so, as I said, he was the Chief Technician of the Audiology Department.

>>> "A written record of impartial blind studies being done? Who on Earth in the product marketing business would consider such an idea?
Wow, talk about a missed opportunity!" <<<

Absolutely, I realise that now. Such a missed opportunity. Hindsight is SUCH a good teacher !!!

>>> "product marketing business" <<< !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The thing is Buddha, we were NOT marketing a product. We were merely telling them of a technique we had discovered !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which MIGHT help the people who were complaining of the 'harsh' sound from their hearing aids.

From my memory (which is good in this respect) over 75% of the people taking part in those blind trials registered an improvement in the sound from their hearing aid after the technique had been done and when asked to give a brief description of that improvement, described it variously as "Clearer, clearer, a lot better, clearer, more natural, clearer" all the way down the list !!

That was the first stage of the trials (i.e 'treating' the hearing aid battery !!). The second stage of the blind trials were to see if Peter could 'treat' the actual hearing aid (as a one off treatment) leaving the hearing aid to then be used with a standard non treated battery but still giving the same improvement in the sound.

The plans outlined by the hospital were for a series of blind trials so, the first of these trials having been carried out, I just expected the trials to continue and would wait, patiently, for the END result.

Just now is not the most appropriate time to explain why the trials never progressed to the next stages - only to say that that is why, having decided to be wait patiently for the full set of blind trials to be carried out, I had never asked for a copy of the records of the first trials !!! As I say, we were NOT making a specific product related to hearing aids, so the trials were NOT for the purpose of producing or testing a product.

>>> "Maybe check the audiology literature. I'm sure those earthshaking findings would have been shared. I bet the dog ate it, eh?" <<<

>>> "I bet the dog ate it, eh" <<<

Is it really so crucial for you to be facetious ?

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "have the first clue on earth of what actual audio research is about for those who work in the field " <<<

I just don't know what one does, MJF, to get people to understand reality. There is, on the one hand, ideal science procedures and on the other hand reality - real life procedures for the people working 'in the field'!!

I will not exaggerate by using the word EVERY, so I will say PRACTICALLY EVERY designer and manufacturer of audio equipment would agree with me that they would not be carrying out rigorous tests to FULLY eliminate bias effects etc EVERY TIME when faced with listening to different resistors sounding different, different capacitors sounding different, different heat sink material sounding different, different printed circuit material sounding different, different equipment housing material sounding different, different woods sounding different, different plastic material sounding different, different metals sounding different, different colours sounding different, different wires sounding different, directionality of certain wires, because nothing would get finalised !! THAT is reality. The reality of the world of audio. The reality of the people 'working in the field' !!
And don't get me started on the effect on the sound of 'passive components' - components not in the actual signal path but affecting the sound !!!

Of course the people involved make every attempt, within reason, to take account of bias, autosuggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, effective marketing etc effects but if there are NO ABSOLUTE test procedures and results carried out by all the people involved it DOES NOT mean that therefore there is a DENIAL of bias, autosuggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, effective marketing effects !!!!!! Which is (i.e a denial) what seems to constantly be presumed.

And, for the same reason, reviewers of audio equipment would not be carrying out rigorous tests to FULLY eliminate bias effects when reviewing equipment.

They all do their best, yes, within the limitations of time, energy and funds but just cannot carry out tests to FULLY eliminate bias effects, autosuggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, effective marketing.

I use the word FULLY because even if tests were carried out which could eliminate (say) 90% of bias effects, some 'bright spark', somewhere, would jump in saying "Even if there is only a tiny amount (10%) of bias effect left, it could STILL be having an influence..........!!" So negating the time, effort and costs already expended on any trials !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Scott wrote:

Quote:
Am I so interesting that you would rather just talk about me and avoid the subject of audio?

You want to talk strawmen and ad hominem? I got no more personal with you than you've been with May in your many rants recently. QUITE a striking change from the neutral objective tone you started out with on Stereophile. That, while I may have disagreed with it, had me regarding you as the only sensible "objectivist" here I could respect. Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do". I don't have the time right now to probe into the details of your angry diatribes, and hold you by the hand and show you all the places where you went wrong, but they're open to all and to scrutiny, anyways. Maybe when you look back on them after the hatred has long subsided, you won't be so ecstatic about them either.

j_j wrote:


Quote:
You must be referring to the Frog.

If you look above to your right, you'll see that the name featured next to the title of the posts, is the person the author is referring to. After 531 posts to your profile, one would think you'd have figured that out by now.


Quote:
If you go to his profile page and hit the "ignore" button

LOL! "Your cowardass is noted", j_j. There's another thing you don't seem to have figured out yet. On the 15th of this month, you had told another member you had SAS on "ignore".

J_J wrote: "I think he already knows that. He's on ignore"

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=71812&type=post

A WHOLE TWO DAYS LATER!, you write this to SAS:

J_J wrote:

"Your statement is an intellectual fraud.
Your posing is tiresome.
Back into ignore you go."

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=71989&type=post

YET ON THE VERY DAY THAT STATED YOU WERE PUTTING SAS ON IGNORE, THIS HAPPENS:

1) NCDrawl says he's sick of your anti-audiophile trolling and pseudoscientific claptrap and is putting YOU on ignore:

NCDRAWL wrote: "congratulations are in order, as you are the 2nd person to make it onto my ignore list."

2) YOU reply to NCDrawl putting you on ignore by saying:

j_j wrote: "Your cowardace is noted. "

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=71835&type=post

When someone else puts you on ignore it's "cowardace", when you do so, it's ok. So your hypocrisy is noted.

But even then, I see your declarations of "ignore" is just more posturing from you, to go along with your drama queen mis en scene and general theatrics. Not only do you "declare" you're putting someone on ignore, but like Ethan and his "ignore you one minute, don't ignore you the next", you never actually do that (either because you're lying or can't figure out how its done). If you can't even stop ignoring someone for 48 hours, what does that say about you and what kind of willpower you have? You never could ignore people talking about you, because your ego wouldn't allow that. Since nothing else has changed with you in 20 years, I don't expect that would either. Look, even when you say you have me on ignore (which you obviously don't), you can't stop talking about me anyway!

If you're going to put someone on ignore j_j, don't be like Ethan and just pretend you're going to do it so you can do some more posturing: just DO IT. That means don't talk about them either. Don't just let the ignore function do all the work! Ignore them yourself! Don't respond to them and don't mention them to others. You never have been able to do that and you never will. Prove me wrong, by all means. For the next time you mention me to another or reply directly, you'll be proving me right again. :-)

you'll find life much more sensible here.

That sounds like you're ready to settle down and permanently troll the audiophiles on Stereophile forums for the remainder of your life, as you did with the audiophiles on RAO for at least 10 years straight. What's really sad is, this really does appear to be your life. I guess that speaks for what else there is to do in the fictional cartoon burb of "Redmond, Washingtoon".

absolutepitch
absolutepitch's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: Jul 9 2006 - 8:58pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
... And don't get me started on the effect on the sound of 'passive components' - components not in the actual signal path but affecting the sound !!! ...

May,
I've tried this too and I 'think' I heard a difference before and after. I'm leaning toward the convinced side. What's heard is an improvement in the same direction of improvement that 'better' passive parts in the signal path provide, only much more subtle.

However, I cannot claim that the difference I heard is real, i.e. without bias because I did not eliminate that possibility. Whatever I think I heard, on subtle or more evident effects, the same qualifier goes with it - until I can make the tweak in one of two 'identical' components and comparing these two components without apriori knowledge which is the one I am hearing.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I just don't know what one does, MJF, to get people to understand reality. There is, on the one hand, ideal science procedures and on the other hand reality - real life procedures for the people working 'in the field'!!

As I see the problem, for some, if not many, there is just no substitute for experience. For them, a lack of experience will result in ignorance, which results in the usual misguided beliefs. Powerful ignorance, I say, as they exhibit an ignorance both willful and blind. But since these armchair critics are either not audio researchers or not willing to become involved in serious investigation in this field (as I have done), it becomes a self-perpetuating ignorance. And the desire to win an academic argument is stronger than the desire to learn. To learn that no matter how knowledgeable they think they are in this field, they don't know everything there is to know in audio-related sciences. "Learning" is work though. Arguing isn't. Learning new things about audio may require a lot of "critical listening" for example. Which appears for most I have met on these forums to be a lot harder, or less interesting, than "critical typing". While some of these typical arguments may have some relevance, the mistake of course is in blindly following one's prejudices and thinking they are all that is relevant. When "all that is relevant" to the typical audio researcher, is advancing the research, and finishing it within a certain time.

However, I am always faced with heavily dogma-fed skeptophiles like Scott, pretending to be experts in audio research while telling me all about how necessary it is to "eliminate bias" (love THAT one!). Which may mean spending a few hours to set up DBT's to ensure that I am really "hearing what I think I am hearing". To which I have to try to explain (once again...) that "in the real world, my son...., I would have been dead 350 years ago, if I had to go through that ritual every time I needed to test a device or changed condition. And not out of my own need, but to satisfy the "Scotts" of the web's audio forums. So I just can't help but roll my eyes and feel like I am arguing with a 12 yr old girl who thinks she's "worldly" now because her class just came back from a trip to Cuba. Telling me all about a guy I never heard of named "Fidel Castro", and "informing me" about how "the world nearly blew up!" in a crisis with the country a few decades ago.

When you do know the difference between "ideology and reality", and you know more about life than what you read in a Wiki page, then you can easily see how naive "the Scott types" are about audio and its research. They by how they argue, suggest that anyone off the street is allowed to submit a paper to a scientific journal, or that they (as audio manufacturers) would even have the training and qualification to do so (Of course, these are always things suggested by those who have never manufactured anything in their entire lives except hot air). Or that every audio manufacturer is has plenty of time to do this, or that there is no reason besides fraudulence that they don't, because it will really boost sales to do so. (Of course, ALL anonymous armchair audio critics on web discussion forums are also marketing experts, as well as economic advisers). And of course, "is there a cost involved in all of this that the manufacturer can afford?" Well obviously there can't be, because that is NEVER mentioned by the professional skeptic on an audio forum (or the "Randi-fan"). Instead, there are only "easy answers" the layperson skeptophile has for his opponent. Of which I am certain we will see coming up.....

ie. "No matter the cost involved, the manufacturer will easily recoup his investment by doing so".

Yes, that is exactly why we see scores of manufacturers of still "controversial" things like cables, amps, quality electronic components, all bothering to submit their products for peer review to scientific journals, and undertaking major scientific studies.

I have seen an eyeful of "Scott types" over my years, on these boards. They all sound the same, say the same things, make the same arguments; even using the very same words. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary....". "You have not looked at the known, logical reasons for observing what....". "Human bias is much stronger than we....". And naturally, they all seem to think they're brilliant and clever, because they believe they are in posession of "advanced knowledge" of audio science (ie. biases, Occam's Razor, falsification, ABX, blah blah yadda yadda.) that their subject is simply ignorant of. And this is because of their own prejudices that dictate that anyone who believes anything that sounds ludicrous to their narrow and fiercely skeptical minds, does so because he is either a) gullible and-or ignorant of science or b) a charlatan preying on those described in a).


Quote:
And don't get me started on the effect on the sound of 'passive components' - components not in the actual signal path but affecting the sound !!!

Don't get ME started on the effect on the sound of the box that houses the active and passive components!

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

I have to say, though I haven't followed this thread too closely, from what i have seen, the level of conversation in this matter has really sunken to its lowest in years, once again. I say this after having witnessed not just one but two manufacturers here, both long time Stereophile members, being acccused outright of perpetrating fraud on the public, by several members. No evidence necessary of such accusations, just the usual "I don't believe it works so it obviously can't". Apparently, the "lack of evidence" is evidence enough. I always thought this violates forum rules but I could be confusing this with another forum. So maybe it doesn't, but given the recent controversy over the issue of (alleged) audio industry members like j_j not wanting to identify his affiliation with the audio industry, I can see why members of the audio industry might NOT want to sign their affiliation, if they can be accused of fraud in a frivolous and groundless fashion, by the non-commercial (or commercial) membership. I know if I was an industry member I would not stand for that, and leave, feeling that crosses a line. We can't even convince scientists to join us in a serious dialogue; so if we lose our industry members as well, where are we headed? The next "Audio Annext"? I'd hate to see this place become the next Audio Annex (a low class free-for-all smack-talking clubhouse), as much as I'd hate to see it turn into the next Hydrogen Audio (an anti-audiophile clique). I know there's a way to criticize an industry member's products without accusing them of fraud outright, because I do that with Ethan all the time.

Even if the Stereophile powers-that-be allow unfounded accusations of fraud on industry members (of Stereophile) in the interest of free speech, can we agree anyway to NOT accuse industry members of "fraud"; particularly when there is no evidence but personal prejudice to support such accusations? Those who have done so, try thinking about what you're saying first. Fraud is a criminal accusation. The unjustified accusation of such is also an actionable offense; regardless of whether you are sued by the manufacturer for making it. So it should not be taken lightly, nor should it be applied lightly; lest it lose its meaning and you lose yours.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "May,
I've tried this too and I 'think' I heard a difference before and after. I'm leaning toward the convinced side. What's heard is an improvement in the same direction of improvement that 'better' passive parts in the signal path provide, only much more subtle.

However, I cannot claim that the difference I heard is real, i.e. without bias because I did not eliminate that possibility. Whatever I think I heard, on subtle or more evident effects, the same qualifier goes with it - until I can make the tweak in one of two 'identical' components and comparing these two components without apriori knowledge which is the one I am hearing." <<<

That is what I have been trying to describe, struggling to point out. I don't know if you are a manufacturer of audio equipment or not, but what you have described is how, so often, engineers experiences all STARTS, whether the components are in the signal path or passive components !!

To describe a typical scenario. The audio equipment designer engineers are working on a new model. Deadlines are looming. One of the design engineers comes in one day and says "I was playing about at home, replacing one of the passive components with one from the latest batch delivered from Joe Bloggs - (the component manufacturer). Something unusual happened which I think you should be aware of. The sound was much better with the latest batch of components."
(or the sound was much worse with the new components) - you see, it does not make any difference which, better or worse, if it SHOULD NOT have changed the sound at all because the new components delivered were of the same specification as ordered and used previously - May !!

The dilemma now is what do the design engineers do ? Do they check things out for themselves as quickly and as thoroughly as they possibly can within the time frame ? Do they delay finalising the new model until they have carried out tests to FULLY eliminate possible bias effects ? Do they go ahead and tell the production staff to carry on as normal ? Do they check out, by all of the design engineers listening after being given the alert by one of the group, decide which component 'sounds' the best (given all components having the same specification and the same measurements) and then instruct the production staff WHICH specific box (A or B) to use the components from ? Or, do they say "What the hell. Just use any of the components from either box, they are ALL of the same specification and with the same measurements" ?????????

I would argue, strongly, that, in the majority of cases, instructions would go to the production staff WHICH particular component to use !!!

>>> "However, I cannot claim that the difference I heard is real, i.e. without bias because I did not eliminate that possibility. Whatever I think I heard, on subtle or more evident effects, the same qualifier goes with it - until I can make the tweak in one of two 'identical' components and comparing these two components without apriori knowledge which is the one I am hearing." <<<

Yes, of course WTL, you are trying to 'do it' (think it) the correct scientific way. NO problems at all with that way of THINKING. THAT is not what I challenge. BUT, "making the tweak in one of two 'identical' components and comparing these two components without apriori knowledge which is the one I am hearing." is not what happens in real life situations. It (without apriori knowledge) is not feasible in most real life situations !! And, talking about the audio industry - IS talking about real life situations.

Relate it to medicines, drugs for medical problems etc then yes, trials to FULLY eliminate bias, autosuggestion, the placeb effect, imagination, effective marketing effects can and do take place over quite lengthy periods (and with significant number of people involved in any such trials), but the production of audio products does not have the luxury of that time scale.

WTL, have you read Martin Colloms article on the sound of PASSIVE components ?

Martin Colloms wrote an excellent piece on passive components in the January 1991 issue of Stereophile. To give a very brief quote from his article :-

>>> Under the heading :- "The sound quality of passive electronic components: capacitors, resistors, inductors, cables."
On passive resistors.
>>> For example, listening tests have revealed audible differences between groups of metal-film and other types of resistor used in audio equipment. In these tests, the listeners had no interest or foreknowledge of the resistor types, and would not have known how to identify them even had they felt like trying......... <<<
On passive capacitors.
>>> All of the capacitors tested were used well within their ratings. Their internal design, foils and electrolyte chemistry were different, however...... The engineers involved were astonished to find that the capacitor differences were highly significant, determining between 20% and 30% of the overall performance of the amplifier...... No measurable differences were observed for the complete amplifier using any of these capacitors. <<<

Martin further describes the differences in sound when using different materials for the printed circuit boards.
He says :-
>>> Conventional electronic wisdom indicates that while pcb quality may be relevant above 50MHz, it is of no importance to audio amplification. <<<

****************

And, yet, Martin's tests showed the different materials used for printed circuit boards to be significant with regards to the resulting sound !!!

So, let us look at these findings more closely. What do we have ? We have passive resistors made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures) but showing no changes in the measurements and yet giving different sound. We have passive capacitors made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures) but showing no changes in the measurements and yet giving different sound. We have printed circuit boards made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures - phenolic paper., bonded paper., glass epoxy) but showing no changes in the measurements and yet giving different sound.

Martin's results merely echoed what Peter and I had discovered in the early 1980s when designing and manufacturing our actively driven low mass diaphragm orthodynamic speaker system and which I have described much more fully in my various talks.

Another thing to be aware of. For Martin to write an article on the sound of passive components in 1991 means that PRIOR to that there will have been many, many other engineers who had already been reporting similar experiences !!!

And, on that same theme, for a journalists such as Martin to write a 6/7 page article on the Cable Controversy in 1984 !!! means that PRIOR to that there will have been many, many other people who had been experiencing 'hearing' different cables sound different.

Then, the next thing that happens is that the debate begins to go round and round like musical chairs.
The argument goes something like :-
If the passive components are not affecting the audio signal (if they were, then any effect on the signal should be able to be measured!!), if the passive components are not affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room, then WHAT are they affecting ?
OR, if no changes in the measurements take place, then it must be that the measuring instruments are not yet sophisticated enough, maybe when there are better measuring techniques..... then we will know !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

"He does offer one component that *ought* to work though. the Promethean base. It's a basic spring suspension. but that aside I am quite convinced. Wish I had gone to his website before arguing with him. He got me good. I enjoy a good practical joke even if it is at my expense. Well done. And of course the irony is that it doesn't matter that I am talking about it in this forum. The joke will continue to work."

There was a time not that long ago when many audiophiles were not convinced that vibration isolation was necesary. These days it makes good "engineering sense" that reducing vibration in key components will result in better sound, even though the technical mechanism is not particularly straightforward, depending on the isolation system under consideration. In any case, it is not required that the customer understand the technical details of how vibration isolation works in order to benefit from the technique. I submit that the clock is capabable of improvements to the sound on a par with proper vibration isolation. And the customer need not understand the underlying principles of the clock to appreciate the benefits.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
So, let us look at these findings more closely. What do we have ? We have passive resistors made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures) but showing no changes in the measurements and yet giving different sound. We have passive capacitors made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures) but showing no changes in the measurements and yet giving different sound. We have printed circuit boards made from different materials (and different chemical mixtures - phenolic paper., bonded paper., glass epoxy) but showing no changes in the measurements and yet giving different sound.

Martin's results merely echoed what Peter and I had discovered in the early 1980s when designing and manufacturing our actively driven low mass diaphragm orthodynamic speaker system and which I have described much more fully in my various talks.

The sad (or ironic if you will) part is that all these things, are only a small sampling of what can affect sound in audio. But because they have not been investigated by whatever "authority" they recognize, those who think everything is known in audio automatically react with disbelief -- more than they do inquisition. Partly what motivates such a response is the fact that they may never have heard of these things affecting our sound or perception thereof.

The true audio researcher (or audiophile) will more likley be intrigued by this information and perhaps endeavour to find out whether it applies in their experiences. The true audio skeptic will more likely understand this as "the lunatic fringe making noise again", attempt to classify it as such, and casually dismiss it without any real work or investigation necessary on their part. Assuming that if it were true, it would already be part of the lexicon. And if it can't be measured? Well, then as a pro audio skeptic, you are expected to dismiss it 10x faster!

I am very glad for the fact that the industry is not entirely made up of such skeptics (who never do or could add anything themselves to the SOTA), and that we do have engineers passionate about sound, researching and working to expand our knowledge and "lexicon" of how sound and perception of is affected; in new and novel ways. This is what for me, continues to make the hobby interesting and exciting. The fact that we haven't (and never will) perfect the reproduction of music (certainly not so long as any one of the above variables can change the sound). While I recognize these efforts may not be appreciated by those who wish to hold back the development of high end audio, foolishly believe we've long since achieved the state of the art, or think they are "pushing the boundaries" of high resolution audio by trying to take audio to new levels of mediocrity and gee-whiz gadgetry (ie. the more speakers the better!). But this dichotomy has probably always existed in this hobby. Those who care more about sound, vs. those who care more about technology.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
There was a time not that long ago when many audiophiles were not convinced that vibration isolation was necesary. These days it makes good "engineering sense" that reducing vibration in key components will result in better sound, even though the technical mechanism is not particularly straightforward, depending on the isolation system under consideration. In any case, it is not required that the customer understand the technical details of how vibration isolation works in order to benefit from the technique. I submit that the clock is capabable of improvements to the sound on a par with proper vibration isolation. And the customer need not understand the underlying principles of the clock to appreciate the benefits.

I can testify to that fact. For I used to argue a good number of years back in other venues, with some of the very members of this forum, about the necessity of vibration isolation (ie. spikes). They insisted it wasn't of course, with any number of reasons to justify their beliefs, and that any measurements, if they registered anything, were simply not significant. I'm sure that if you go on Hydrogen today, you can probably still have the same argument with three quarters of the membership, if you enjoy excercises in futility. But from the reactions I've seen on various forums to MD's product line-up (where the isolation products are the only ones these flat-earthers will consider to have any effect on sound), no doubt resonance control is much more widely accepted today than it was back then, when I was first experimenting with it. I've been around long enough to realize that, it's always like this in audio.

Most people have this built-in resistance to new and novel ideas, in reproduction of sound. In the case of spikes, it may take them 15 years to "catch up" to what the more advanced philes were experimenting with. "Yeah, I can see how that would work" you hear.... 15 years later! In the case of quality cables, some people still haven't caught up after 35 years! The majority have though, even though this was very controversial in its infancy as well. The idea behind the green pen, which is another tweak I advocated way back when, is now being researched and produced by Sony for use on their CD's. I can only presume they failed to read the entry at "snopes.com", where they would have learned this was just an "urban legend" that proved untrue, and saved at least thousands of dollars in R&D.

A lot of people make isolation devices, and the fact of that probably goes further than any "science" does in explaining just why these products have become far more accepted today, within the audiophile community at large. The monster marketing of Monster cables has I think done a lot to make quality cabling a completely uncontroversial thing for even the consumer audio market. Now you can buy cables that at least have a pretense to quality, at your local dollar store. Let's not forget, marketing is also what made people give up their superior turntables for inferior sounding CD players. Or their superior Betamaxes for inferior VHS format. Or their extremely versatile timeshifting VHS recorders for DVD players that couldn't record jack squat. Or for that matter, "advanced" TIVO recorders that were far less versatile than the video tape recorders they replaced. Or the new and really expensive Blue Ray DVD machines that -still- can't record jack squat. So a product's popularity may have nothing to do with how good it is or how well it works. Just as its lack of acceptance may not have anything to do with how it works either.

Nobody here fully understands what magnetism is, and yet it helps to drive the loudspeakers they listen to every day. Which to me is about as "proofy" as it gets to the concept that you obviously don't have to understand how something works (ie. The Clock), in order to observe or benefit from its effect. Just as it has been proven over and over and over again on these forums, that you don't have to understand how something works in audio, to dismiss it by asserting that it doesn't. Which seems to support another truism that we see played out here every day in the human drama that is the Stereophile forums ( ). Namely that "Americans respect science. They just don't understand any of it".

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/07/11/am...tand-any-of-it/

I don't know how long it would take for the clock, the chip, the TT tweak; and whatever products in MD's stable that use more advanced ideas, to be accepted by the audio enthusiast who waits until he sees it's accepted by everyone else he knows before he seriously considers that there may be some merit to it after all. I don't see replicas of MD's more advanced products ever hitting the dollar stores, because they've become so commonplace (although I can see it being argued by the reductionists that the clock or pebbles came from the dollar store....). But.... if they were made by Sony and marketed by Monster, and came with a free Blue Ray player.... I can guarandamntee you they wouldn't be every audio skeptic's wet dream any longer. No more controversial than buying a Pabst Blue Ribbon, perhaps.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
The idea behind the green pen, which is another tweak I advocated way back when, is now being researched and produced by Sony for use on their CD's. I can only presume they failed to read the entry at "snopes.com", where they would have learned this was just an "urban legend" that proved untrue, and saved at least thousands of dollars in R&D.

Nah, they were smart enough to presume that if you just remaster it, goosing the bass and treble a bit, slap a green label on it and put out a press release, every self professed whacked out

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 22 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

We demo'd the Intelligent Chip to the head of mastering for JVC Japan at CES 2005. We had been demo'd the chip all morning to press, dealers and audiophiles. The JVC guy never did express an opinion one way or the other. I looked for some sort of reaction on his face but didn't see any. I imagine he was thinking, "It will be best if I don't mention this Intelligent Chip thing to my boss when I get back home."

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Nah, they were smart enough to presume that if you just remaster it, goosing the bass and treble a bit, slap a green label on it and put out a press release, every self professed whacked out

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Who told you they "goosed the bass and treble" on the green CD's?

No one. Pure speculation on my part. Who told you there was R&D involved?


Quote:
The difference being, us audiophiles enjoy better sound.

Yea yea, cause you say so.


Quote:
What do you think the "CD" in "SACD" stands for?

Certificates of Deposit?


Quote:
This is not rocket science. If you came out with a new performance tire.... would it make more sense to design it for a Pinto or a Porsche?

Dunno. Sony seems confused. They have the new Blu-spec CD @ 25 to 45 bucks a pop that they claim offers improved sound based on technical improvements in the manufacturing process with an initial release of 60 titles, you know "Kind of Froggy Blue" and the like.

On the other hand you claim they are improving their high performance line with green labels and a whopping 5 initial releases like "What's His Names All Star Band". Price TBD.

Who knows, maybe the internet noise will decide the victor with their claims of "amazing" differences.

If not, there's always red, yellow and all those other colors.

RG

krabapple
krabapple's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 7 2005 - 8:10pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Frog croaked out:

I am very glad for the fact that the industry is not entirely made up of such skeptics (who never do or could add anything themselves to the SOTA)

Yeah, Lipshitz and Vanderkooy, no contributions to digital SOTA there.

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

The most interesting thing of all is that reasonable men in the presence of other reasonable men - have no need to opine.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "The most interesting thing of all is that reasonable men in the presence of other reasonable men - have no need to opine." <<<

I would add another to that "The next most interesting thing of all is that intelligent people in the presence of other intelligent people - have no need to resort to mockery."

To quote rgibran :-

>>> "Nah, they were smart enough to presume that if you just remaster it, goosing the bass and treble a bit, slap a green label on it and put out a press release, every self professed whacked out 'advanced audiophile' like Teresa Goodwin and, ahem, others will start runnin' round the internet claimin'

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I don't know how long it would take for the clock, the chip, the TT tweak; and whatever products in MD's stable that use more advanced ideas, to be accepted by the audio enthusiast who waits until he sees it's accepted by everyone else he knows before he seriously considers that there may be some merit to it after all. I don't see replicas of MD's more advanced products ever hitting the dollar stores, because they've become so commonplace (although I can see it being argued by the reductionists that the clock or pebbles came from the dollar store....). But.... if they were made by Sony and marketed by Monster, and came with a free Blue Ray player.... I can guarandamntee you they wouldn't be every audio skeptic's wet dream any longer. No more controversial than buying a Pabst Blue Ribbon, perhaps.

I know it has been said that there is no use in crying over spilt milk, but after reading the passage above, milk spontaneously gushed out my nose and made a mess of my keyboard. MJF are you in on the joke too? If so, funny stuff. Heck, even if not, funny stuff. Fun E

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I know it has been said that there is no use in crying over spilt milk, but after reading the passage above, milk spontaneously gushed out my nose and made a mess of my keyboard. MJF are you in on the joke too?

Yes, I am. But you're not, however. Because, you see, the "joke" is you thinking any of this is a "joke". NOT an original thought either on your part, btw, in case you were thinking it is. It's a kind of mindless, knee-jerk reaction that many automatically respond with when their narrow world-view has been challenged, and they respond not with genuine scientific curiousity, but by dismissing anything that doesn't fit that limited view. This plague of the willfully ignorant can only be overcome by a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. But that's very difficult when you are a reductionist struggling against trying to understand things on a more meaningful level, and believing you know it all in the face of something you obviously don't. Nor is it at all helped by the fact that we are often talking about products that may utilize inexpensive off-the-shelf components that have been modified, and that to reveal how they work risks giving away proprietary information that helps competitors steal the technology.

Still, to believe even for a second that Kaitt invested all this time and money in putting together the MD site (and related Audiogon auctions), complete with Paypal's approval, for a lark, well that's just stupid. And not "funny stupid"; just plain dull "stupid stupid". To suggest he did so for reasons of defrauding the public, without any evidence but one's own ignorance of his products and motivations, well that's both mean, unfair and extremely irresponsible accusations to make. It reflects more upon the accuser, if not the more frightful aspects of our society in general, than it does on Machina Dynamica.


Quote:
If so, funny stuff. Heck, even if not, funny stuff. Fun E

Mocking things you're ignorant of is funny? If you say so. I've seen it so many times myself though, that I hope you'll excuse me if I find it pretty old. Though I have to admit, the image of you with milk running out your nose and all over your chest due to being blinded by your own ignorance of audio is kind of funny. But I'd rather get beyond the mockery myself, knowing that my sound has benefitted greatly from my not doing that. You don't ever come to understand anything in life by ignorantly mocking it. I don't kow if you realize this, but you have long sinced shed your presentation of objectivity and neutrality, that you started out with. Now I'm finding it really hard to tell you from any other "lunatic objectivist"; because at least you once were wise enough it seems, to avoid making claims against others over things you have never studied and researched. Now, like the rest of the LFO's, you are confusing your personal prejudices (replete with speculations, conjecture and the like) with "facts", as though they are one and the same.

Utlimately, what concerns me about your kind of attitude is not whether you ever get it or not, because I don't care about that. It doesn't affect me benefitting from products you will never even come near, for fear of them turning you into a cult zombie or something. What concerns me is the rest of us in the audiophile community who don't share your regressive attitude of mindlessly rejecting everything that doesn't fit your view of what is legit or not, because there are far fewer of us who are more tolerant and-or accepting of advanced and alternative ideas, we may be the ones who will suffer for the ignorance of the masses. The way your personal limitations affects me is that those engineers and researchers who may have unusual (but legitimate) ideas may not want to risk bringing them to market in such an intellectually hostile marketplace, nowhere ready to even consider their ideas, let alone embrace them.

Or, they may have brought their unusual but legitimate ideas to this market, only to find they could not sustain production due to the ignorant hostility I mentioned from both mainstream press and mainstream minds. The TICE clock comes to mind as one example, as a product that AFAIK is no longer sold for these reasons. Its many skeptical critics (most of who have never even used it) of course will cheer its absence and say this is as its meant to be; illogically arguing this is proof it was snake oil**. I don't believe that for a second; let alone the idea that Tice was dishonest; based just on my own experiments with similar clocks at the time (n.b. I still believe in the idea, even if I haven't used it in 15 years). Point being, if I wanted to easily obtain one, I can no longer do so if its out of production. (**FWIW, Frank Doris was able to detect the TICE clock in a blind test with statistical signifiance in TAS, Issue 68, 1990).

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
I don't know how long it would take for the clock, the chip, the TT tweak; and whatever products in MD's stable that use more advanced ideas, to be accepted by the audio enthusiast who waits until he sees it's accepted by everyone else he knows before he seriously considers that there may be some merit to it after all. I don't see replicas of MD's more advanced products ever hitting the dollar stores, because they've become so commonplace (although I can see it being argued by the reductionists that the clock or pebbles came from the dollar store....). But.... if they were made by Sony and marketed by Monster, and came with a free Blue Ray player.... I can guarandamntee you they wouldn't be every audio skeptic's wet dream any longer. No more controversial than buying a Pabst Blue Ribbon, perhaps.

I know it has been said that there is no use in crying over spilt milk, but after reading the passage above, milk spontaneously gushed out my nose and made a mess of my keyboard. MJF are you in on the joke too? If so, funny stuff. Heck, even if not, funny stuff. Fun E

So is this performance a Freddy Blassie or a Perry Caravello type performance? Either way it is still modestly entertaining.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> " in such an intellectually hostile marketplace, nowhere ready to even consider their ideas, let alone embrace them." <<<

I would like to add to that MJF. "Even when engineers and technicians may have initially embraced them, they can eventually become so terrified of ridicule, so fearful of damage to their professional reputation that they retreat behind the security of the parapet."

THAT is exactly what happened during the 'hearing aid trials' 22 years ago. It really IS hard to believe that so called scientists would allow such fear to govern any hint there might be of advancement in knowledge, of improvements, any 'learning' taking them forward in understanding, but it really does happen !!! The trials, way back in the late 1980s, were not halted because of any negative results but because of a growing 'fear of any damage to a professional reputation' if the technician/scientist involved continued with them !!!!

If you think that was rigidity exhibited by just ONE scientist some 22 years ago then look at the response by another 'scientist' just a few years ago (2006) - during a discussion on another 'thread' on this very Stereophile Chat Forum.

Someone calling themselves 'Scooter123' and referring to themselves as "an Applied Scientist" said (referring to the people working in the field of hearing aids) :-

>>> "These people are hard nosed SCIENTISTS and your "treatments" have absolutely no foundation in Science. That's why they won't explore your treatments...... To be blunt, they have enough to do within the framework of real science that they won't even consider wasting any time on mysticism.

BTW, no I won't approach anyone in the hearing aid industry about experimenting with your treatments. The simple fact is that I am an Applied Scientist and do not believe that your treatments work." <<<

"Mysticism" ??? Scooter 123 had also PRESUMED that the "treatment involved coloring the batteries with specially "blessed" pens".

I quote from some of my reply to Scooter 123 :-

>>> "Don't Professors rap students knuckles anymore when the students make presumptions without knowing the facts ?
The facts are that the technique described is FREE, FREE, ABSOLUTELY FREE.

Please can people observe where some of the blockages to progress are ?
If some of you, members of the audio fraternity, are prepared to do some experiments for yourself, to try things without pre judging, what chance is there of progress if a self professed Applied Scientist declares that No, he is not going to waste time on what he describes as mysticism ?'

If the researchers into hearing aids are like Scooter123 - what he calls 'hard nosed scientists' - and would not be prepared to do experiments, then how can progress be made ? If the researchers WERE prepared to do some experiments such as freezing the batteries, and they discovered that YES, that technique can give improvements i.e make the sound of the hearing aid less harsh, aggressive, and shouty - then they MIGHT then be prepared to try the freezing technique on the ACTUAL hearing aid !!! WOW - just imagine - that technique might even give further improvements !!

I would never recommend that members of the public should themselves freeze the actual hearing aids - they are too precious and too expensive for people to attempt such things themselves - but surely the PROFESSIONALS - the researchers into hearing aids should be seriously investigating this aspect to see what is effective and what can be done in that area ?

But if Scooter123 as a professed 'Applied Scientist' is representative of the 'hard nosed scientists' working on hearing aids, then I am presuming that NOTHING will be done !! Yet again !!" <<<

Your "nowhere ready to even consider their ideas", MJF, could not be more true !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
>>> " in such an intellectually hostile marketplace, nowhere ready to even consider their ideas, let alone embrace them." <<<

I would like to add to that MJF. "Even when engineers and technicians may have initially embraced them, they can eventually become so terrified of ridicule, so fearful of damage to their professional reputation that they retreat behind the security of the parapet."

THAT is exactly what happened during the 'hearing aid trials' 22 years ago. It really IS hard to believe that so called scientists would allow such fear to govern any hint there might be of advancement in knowledge, of improvements, any 'learning' taking them forward in understanding, but it really does happen !!! The trials, way back in the late 1980s, were not halted because of any negative results but because of a growing 'fear of any damage to a professional reputation' if the technician/scientist involved continued with them !!!!

If you think that was rigidity exhibited by just ONE scientist some 22 years ago then look at the response by another 'scientist' just a few years ago (2006) - during a discussion on another 'thread' on this very Stereophile Chat Forum.

Someone calling themselves 'Scooter123' and referring to themselves as "an Applied Scientist" said (referring to the people working in the field of hearing aids) :-

>>> "These people are hard nosed SCIENTISTS and your "treatments" have absolutely no foundation in Science. That's why they won't explore your treatments...... To be blunt, they have enough to do within the framework of real science that they won't even consider wasting any time on mysticism.

BTW, no I won't approach anyone in the hearing aid industry about experimenting with your treatments. The simple fact is that I am an Applied Scientist and do not believe that your treatments work." <<<

"Mysticism" ??? Scooter 123 had also PRESUMED that the "treatment involved coloring the batteries with specially "blessed" pens".

I quote from some of my reply to Scooter 123 :-

>>> "Don't Professors rap students knuckles anymore when the students make presumptions without knowing the facts ?
The facts are that the technique described is FREE, FREE, ABSOLUTELY FREE.

Please can people observe where some of the blockages to progress are ?
If some of you, members of the audio fraternity, are prepared to do some experiments for yourself, to try things without pre judging, what chance is there of progress if a self professed Applied Scientist declares that No, he is not going to waste time on what he describes as mysticism ?'

If the researchers into hearing aids are like Scooter123 - what he calls 'hard nosed scientists' - and would not be prepared to do experiments, then how can progress be made ? If the researchers WERE prepared to do some experiments such as freezing the batteries, and they discovered that YES, that technique can give improvements i.e make the sound of the hearing aid less harsh, aggressive, and shouty - then they MIGHT then be prepared to try the freezing technique on the ACTUAL hearing aid !!! WOW - just imagine - that technique might even give further improvements !!

I would never recommend that members of the public should themselves freeze the actual hearing aids - they are too precious and too expensive for people to attempt such things themselves - but surely the PROFESSIONALS - the researchers into hearing aids should be seriously investigating this aspect to see what is effective and what can be done in that area ?

But if Scooter123 as a professed 'Applied Scientist' is representative of the 'hard nosed scientists' working on hearing aids, then I am presuming that NOTHING will be done !! Yet again !!" <<<

Your "nowhere ready to even consider their ideas", MJF, could not be more true !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

I'm sure it's the same fear that drives the scientists' position on things like UFOs, bigfoot and global warming. The eye witness acounts are too numerous to be untrue. There are after all over four million likely alien abduction cases in the U.S. alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction_claimants
Are we seriously considering the possibility of this large a scale of a conspiracy? Yet scientists are pretty unanimous in their out of hand dismisal of the whole ball of wax. And based on what? The evidence of Roswell is pretty conclusive. http://www.rense.com/general31/newcom.htm
Obviously scientists fear ridicule on this one as well. Bigfoot? http://www.bfro.net/GDB/ are all these people conspiring as well? And what of global warming? While we have mixed eye witness accounts on that subject (many people report cooler weather in their regions) we know that the government preasure to surpress this information for obvious reasons of greed were huge. The threat of losing government funding alone was enough to make the scientists cave in on global warming. my god our former president denied it publically! so of course scientists all hid their true feelings on global warming and denied the obvious truth of it. so May I have to agree with you. Scientists definitely base their "public" views on contraversial topics on fear of ridicule not on the compelling evidence that millions of eyewitnesses bring to the table.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I'm sure it's the same fear that drives the scientists' position on things like UFOs, bigfoot and global warming ... The threat of losing government funding alone was enough to make the scientists cave in on global warming. my god our former president denied it publically! so of course scientists all hid their true feelings on global warming and denied the obvious truth of it. so May I have to agree with you. Scientists definitely base their "public" views on contraversial topics on fear of ridicule not on the compelling evidence that millions of eyewitnesses bring to the table.

You forgot to mention ghosts.

ROTFL

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know how long it would take for the clock, the chip, the TT tweak; and whatever products in MD's stable that use more advanced ideas, to be accepted by the audio enthusiast who waits until he sees it's accepted by everyone else he knows before he seriously considers that there may be some merit to it after all. I don't see replicas of MD's more advanced products ever hitting the dollar stores, because they've become so commonplace (although I can see it being argued by the reductionists that the clock or pebbles came from the dollar store....). But.... if they were made by Sony and marketed by Monster, and came with a free Blue Ray player.... I can guarandamntee you they wouldn't be every audio skeptic's wet dream any longer. No more controversial than buying a Pabst Blue Ribbon, perhaps.

I know it has been said that there is no use in crying over spilt milk, but after reading the passage above, milk spontaneously gushed out my nose and made a mess of my keyboard. MJF are you in on the joke too? If so, funny stuff. Heck, even if not, funny stuff. Fun E

So is this performance a Freddy Blassie or a Perry Caravello type performance? Either way it is still modestly entertaining.

Uh, I'm not sure why you're congratulating yourself here on your own words, but the important thing is, you avoided thinking too hard about anything I wrote. That was good. That was a good thing, Scotty. Here. Have a treat. You earned it.


Quote:
I'm sure it's the same fear that drives the scientists' position on things like UFOs, bigfoot and global warming. The eye witness acounts are too numerous to be untrue. There are after all over four million likely alien abduction cases in the U.S. alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction_claimants. Are we seriously considering the possibility of this large a scale of a conspiracy? Yet scientists are pretty unanimous in their out of hand dismisal of the whole ball of wax.

Scientists are pretty unanimous in their "out of hand dismissal" of global warming? Something tells me you haven't surfed enough Wiki pages today, my friend. So now you're equating supernatural events like UFO's, bigfoot sightings, ghosts, chupacabras, and whether King Kong could beat Godzilla with the readily observable effects of freezing temperatures on battery chemistry. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture? Bueller? Anyone?

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Scientists are pretty unanimous in their "out of hand dismissal" of global warming? Something tells me you haven't surfed enough Wiki pages today, my friend.

You mean they are not? Oh dear! that would completely undermind my whole argument as well as May's argument. Are you sure? I would hate to have to change my belief based on something as trivial as the facts. C'mon! You aren't seriously saying that scientists have withstood the massive preasures put upon them from various agencies and, in mass, took a stand for what they believe to be the truth based on the evidence are you? You mean May might be wrong about scientists and their fears? O c'mon!!!!


Quote:
So now you're equating supernatural events like UFO's, bigfoot sightings, ghosts, chupacabras, and whether King Kong could beat Godzilla with the readily observable effects of freezing temperatures on battery chemistry.

I never mentioned ghosts. what is it about extraterrestrial beings or currently uncaptured animal life here on earth that is supernatural? what laws of physics precludes the possibility of life evolving on other planets? There are literally thousands of newly discovered species of animal each year. How is bigfoot a claim of the supernatural rather than a claim of an uncaptured species of animal?


Quote:
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture? Bueller? Anyone?

I am quite sure many here could explain it to you but when one has to explain the joke it usually loses it's funny. I thought you said you were in on the joke.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
Scientists are pretty unanimous in their "out of hand dismissal" of global warming? Something tells me you haven't surfed enough Wiki pages today, my friend.


You mean they are not? Oh dear! that would completely undermind my whole argument as well as May's argument.

Where did May argue that scientists are unanimous in their dismissal of global warming? Is you putting words in people's mouths part of your act?


Quote:
Are you sure? I would hate to have to change my belief based on something as trivial as the facts.

As usual, you and "facts" do not seem to get along very well. This is a study of more than 3,146 earth scientists who agree that global warming is real: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I never mentioned ghosts.

I know that. I was the one who pointed that out.

But someone else here who always resorts to this argument about UFO's and Bigfoot loves to include ghosts. It just isn't the same when a stupid argument like this doesn't include ghosts.

Though lumping global warming in with Bigfoot takes a unique talent, that's for certain.

Which of these is not like the others:
1) Bigfoot
2) Global warming
3) The Bermuda Triangle
4) Ghosts

(Answers at the end of the thread. Have fun!)

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I know that. I was the one who pointed that out.

But someone else here who always resorts to this argument about UFO's and Bigfoot loves to include ghosts. It just isn't the same when a stupid argument like this doesn't include ghosts.

Though lumping global warming in with Bigfoot takes a unique talent, that's for certain.

I heartily concur. But I'm afraid Scott might find your question too boring and ignore it, because it's not "Fun E" and entertaining enough. I propose we Sesame Street it up a bit, and with enough graphics and music, hopefully, it will hold his interest....

And a 1, and a 2, and a 3...

" Three of these things belong together
Three of these things are kind of the same
Can you guess which one of these doesn't belong here?
Now it's time to play our game!
It's time to play our game!

And to ensure participation.... "Scott: There's a Fudgesicle in it if you get this right!".


Quote:

Which of these is not like the others:

1) Bigfoot
2) Global warming
3) The Bermuda Triangle
4) Ghosts

(Answers at the end of the thread. Have fun!)

I guess Global Chupacabras.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I guess Global Chupacabras.

Dang! You're gooooood!

But the correct answer is ghost global chupacabras in Bermuda. Bigfoot was just in there to satisfy the truly crazy folks who call in.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Where did May argue that scientists are unanimous in their dismissal of global warming?

Where did I say she did that?


Quote:
Is you putting words in people's mouths part of your act?

Is you putting words in people's mouths part of your act?


Quote:
As usual, you and "facts" do not seem to get along very well. This is a study of more than 3,146 earth scientists who agree that global warming is real: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

Whay should I pay attention to that? why should I let all that stuff get in the way of what I already believe? Seems like a lot of trouble.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
Where did May argue that scientists are unanimous in their dismissal of global warming?

Where did I say she did that?

Oh dear. I don't know where I got that notion. Let's put this in the Slightly Way Back Machine, and see what gives:

I wrote:

Scientists are pretty unanimous in their "out of hand dismissal" of global warming? Something tells me you haven't surfed enough Wiki pages today, my friend.

You responded:

You mean they are not? Oh dear! that would completely undermind my whole argument as well as May's argument.

Since YOUR argument was that scientists the world over are dismissing global warming, and you said it would (undermine) both yours and May's arguments, then that should be understood as you saying May has made the same argument as you about scientists dismissing global warming.


Quote:

Quote:
Is you putting words in people's mouths part of your act?


Is you putting words in people's mouths part of your act?

Wow, that's uncanny. It's like meeting my twin for the first time. Are you any good at doing a Charles Bronson impression? I'm responsible for doing the casting for a street theatre version of "Death Wish". If you can get up to speed for a Thursday premiere opening and you don't mind working with a cast of little people, I could really use a man of your talents. Your salary will have to be paid in coupons mind you, but they're for the restaurant across the street and trust me, they do a really good fish and chips (if you come in early before the oil gets too recycled).


Quote:

Quote:
As usual, you and "facts" do not seem to get along very well. This is a study of more than 3,146 earth scientists who agree that global warming is real: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm


Whay should I pay attention to that? why should I let all that stuff get in the way of what I already believe? Seems like a lot of trouble.

You're right, Scott. Trying to find out what is true (particulary for a controversial idea in audio),is a lot of trouble. You should continue to believe in UFO's, alien abductions, all the Roswell conspiracies, Bigfoot, and that "scientists" are unanimous in their declaration that global warming is a hoax. After all, all of the other audio skeptics don't let "all that stuff" get in the way of what they choose to believe. If its easier to believe something is a hoax than to do your own research and try to get a more meaningful opinion, then no one should stop you from believing what you want to believe; whether its factual, true or NOT factual and true.

Reading messages beyond the first 2 lines, clicking on boring links that are supposed to "prove" (and teach you) something you don't need to know, having to "think" about what people are telling you... that's for SUCKERS. Plus, as I'm sure you know, there's a real danger in learning anything new. People who think they're all that, trying to tell you that something isn't the way you already learned it is, what do they do? All they do is try to fill your head with new information about new ideas or stuff, and all that does is shove out all the old information of stuff you already knew. Since you've learned so much cool stuff, like how to make a Kool-Aid pipe bomb, what goes could be some really cool stuff that you don't want to or need to lose. Like what to use for rolling papers when you're in the joint.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
"Where did May argue that scientists are unanimous in their dismissal of global warming?"

"Where did I say she did that?"

Oh dear. I don't know where I got that notion. Let's put this in the Slightly Way Back Machine, and see what gives:

I wrote:

Scientists are pretty unanimous in their "out of hand dismissal" of global warming? Something tells me you haven't surfed enough Wiki pages today, my friend.

You responded:

You mean they are not? Oh dear! that would completely undermind my whole argument as well as May's argument.

Since YOUR argument was that scientists the world over are dismissing global warming,

OOPs somebody (point to MJF and whistle) is putting words in other peoples' mouths yet again. My argument, as was May's argument, was that scientists were hiding their true beliefs out of fear of ridicule. I simply cited different examples than did May. But you took one of my examples and showed that the facts got in the way of the argument. I'm just asking why I should let something as trivial as facts get in the way? Clearly you aren't letting them get in your way. May clearly isn't letting them get in her way.


Quote:

"Why should I pay attention to that?(the evidence of global warming) why should I let all that stuff get in the way of what I already believe? Seems like a lot of trouble."

You're right, Scott. Trying to find out what is true (particulary for a controversial idea in audio),is a lot of trouble. You should continue to believe in UFO's, alien abductions, all the Roswell conspiracies, Bigfoot, and that "scientists" are unanimous in their declaration that global warming is a hoax. After all, all of the other audio skeptics don't let "all that stuff" get in the way of what they choose to believe. If its easier to believe something is a hoax than to do your own research and try to get a more meaningful opinion, then no one should stop you from believing what you want to believe; whether its factual, true or NOT factual and true.

Reading messages beyond the first 2 lines, clicking on boring links that are supposed to "prove" (and teach you) something you don't need to know, having to "think" about what people are telling you... that's for SUCKERS. Plus, as I'm sure you know, there's a real danger in learning anything new. People who think they're all that, trying to tell you that something isn't the way you already learned it is, what do they do? All they do is try to fill your head with new information about new ideas or stuff, and all that does is shove out all the old information of stuff you already knew. Since you've learned so much cool stuff, like how to make a Kool-Aid pipe bomb, what goes could be some really cool stuff that you don't want to or need to lose. Like what to use for rolling papers when you're in the joint.

You still aren't getting the jokes. Any of them! No wonder you think Machina Dynamica is legit.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "If its easier to believe something is a hoax than to do your own research" <<<

As is evidenced in so many of the responses, it would appear that it IS easier for many people to believe something is a hoax than for people to do their own research.
Scott's response was actually quite typical of what I had been trying to convey. Nowhere did I see him say the words 'it is so simple and easy to try the technique, so why don't people do just that'. Instead he resorted to attack, mockery and ridicule. Exactly what I was outlining some people do !!

It IS so easy to try simple experiments. Instead of experimenting with applying a colour to CDs and see what happened, such as "rgibran" chose instead to mock Teresa and the Sony engineers, and, by association, all the others who had reported similar improvements in their sound by doing something similar !! Instead of trying the simple and easy freezing/slow defrost technique with hearing aid batteries, such as Scooter 123 resorted to mockery with his reference to 'mysticism' and 'coloring the batteries with specially "blessed" pens". !! Instead of actually trying the experiment of 'treating' a battery, Scott resorted to brickbats !!! Such as, "Let's bring in the subject of UFOs, lets bring in the subject of alien abductions" etc - a typical tactic of using any diversionary tactic one can think of, every bit of mockery one can think of instead of ACTUALLY trying a simple technique !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or Buddha's contribution of "Can you quit it with the "cryogenically frozen" stuff?" - meaning 'please May will you stop talking about it'.

A common reason for people using attack, denial, mockery, ridicule is fear. Not fear of death or injury but fear of being mocked, ridiculed, laughed at, ostracised from the main pack.
>>> "Trying to find out what is true (particulary for a controversial idea in audio),is a lot of trouble." <<<

It CAN involve quite a lot of 'trouble' in trying to find out what is true (particularly in audio) but it does not ALWAYS have to be so.
It does not involve a 'lot of trouble' to try the freezing/slow defrost procedure and then listening. It does not involve a 'lot of trouble' to try the technique of applying a colour (or experimenting with applying different colours) to CDs and then listening. It does not involve a 'lot of trouble' to experiment with applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs and then listening. It does not involve a 'lot of trouble' in listening to an interconnect connected one way round and then the other way round to see (hear) if one can detect any difference in the sound - from the SAME cable !!

Not MY definition of 'trouble' anyway. My definition of 'trouble' STARTS at the point where one has to unscrew all the screws of a piece of equipment, unsolder a component, solder in another component, re screw all the screws again, listen, then go through all that process again to replace with the previous component, to listen to THAT again !! Just to check WHICH component might sound the best !!! And THAT is just discussing capacitors !! What then about the sound of resistors ? Etc. etc.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "My argument, as was May's argument, was that scientists were hiding their true beliefs out of fear of ridicule." <<<

ER, not exactly !!!! Some are, some are not !! Some are and hiding behind the parapet for fear of being ridiculed, some won't even experiment in the first place, for fear of being ridiculed !! Either I miswrote it or you misread what I intended. The point I TRIED to make (just why is it so difficult ????) is with the example I gave below.

>>> "These people are hard nosed SCIENTISTS and your "treatments" have absolutely no foundation in Science. That's why they won't explore your treatments...... To be blunt, they have enough to do within the framework of real science that they won't even consider wasting any time on mysticism.

I.e That people WON'T do the experiments in the first place for fear of being ridiculed, mocked, accused of playing with mysticism etc.

The OTHER fear, which greatly influenced the Chief Technician at the hospital, was that after he had done the first trials successfully, he just happened to read a very influential article by a very influential person in a very influential Hi Fi magazine which referred to a certain Peter Belt as a 'charlatan', so the Chief Technician's response after that was 'that it would be better for HIS professional reputation if he was not seen to be involved with someone being called a 'charlatan' !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fear of being associated with someone being called a 'charlatan' was greater than the desire to try to improve the sound of hearing aids !!!! So, no further trials were carried out by him !!

Surely, none of that can be misinterpreted ???

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
>>> "If its easier to believe something is a hoax than to do your own research" <<<

As is evidenced in so many of the responses, it would appear that it IS easier for many people to believe something is a hoax than for people to do their own research.
Scott's response was actually quite typical of what I had been trying to convey. Nowhere did I see him say the words 'it is so simple and easy to try the technique, so why don't people do just that'.

Nowhere May? really? Sure about that May? You seem to have a rather selective memory on what I have said. Is this because I haven't said those *exact* words? It is so simple and easy to try the technique, so why don't people do just that? I did. I didn't hear any differences but I did try a few of the tweeks being discussed including PB tweeks. What now May? Isn't that the so called research you claim is missing from my perspective?

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
>>> "My argument, as was May's argument, was that scientists were hiding their true beliefs out of fear of ridicule." <<<

ER, not exactly !!!! Some are, some are not !! Some are and hiding behind the parapet for fear of being ridiculed, some won't even experiment in the first place, for fear of being ridiculed !! Either I miswrote it or you misread what I intended. The point I TRIED to make (just why is it so difficult ????) is with the example I gave below.

>>> "These people are hard nosed SCIENTISTS and your "treatments" have absolutely no foundation in Science. That's why they won't explore your treatments...... To be blunt, they have enough to do within the framework of real science that they won't even consider wasting any time on mysticism.

I.e That people WON'T do the experiments in the first place for fear of being ridiculed, mocked, accused of playing with mysticism etc.

The OTHER fear, which greatly influenced the Chief Technician at the hospital, was that after he had done the first trials successfully, he just happened to read a very influential article by a very influential person in a very influential Hi Fi magazine which referred to a certain Peter Belt as a 'charlatan', so the Chief Technician's response after that was 'that it would be better for HIS professional reputation if he was not seen to be involved with someone being called a 'charlatan' !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fear of being associated with someone being called a 'charlatan' was greater than the desire to try to improve the sound of hearing aids !!!! So, no further trials were carried out by him !!

Surely, none of that can be misinterpreted ???

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

OK May. I apparently overstated your position. but what was wrong with any of the examples I gave that supported your argument? MJF found them offensive but the only thing he could offer for taking such offense was his belief that such examples were hoaxes despite the mountain of evidence in the form of countless eyewitness reports. Isn't that what you rely upon May? A veritable plethora of eye witness accounts that all lead to the same conclusions?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Isn't that what you rely upon May? A veritable plethora of eye witness accounts that all lead to the same conclusions?

Yeah! Yeah! Them damned ol'eye witness accounts! That damned ol'observed evidence! Hang'em! String'em up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiTd3O7YT...player_embedded

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
Isn't that what you rely upon May? A veritable plethora of eye witness accounts that all lead to the same conclusions?

Yeah! Yeah! Them damned ol'eye witness accounts! That damned ol'observed evidence! Hang'em! String'em up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiTd3O7YT...player_embedded

Four million alien abductees can't be wrong can they? four......miiiiiilllllliiiiioooonnnnn, heck some of them come back with alien technology embedded in their bodies. We have "hard" evidence to support that. Why are the scientists denying this phenomenon? Four___million____ eyewitness___acounts. It must be fear of ridicule.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Four million alien abductees can't be wrong can they? four......miiiiiilllllliiiiioooonnnnn, heck some of them come back with alien technology embedded in their bodies. We have "hard" evidence to support that. Why are the scientists denying this phenomenon? Four___million____ eyewitness___acounts. It must be fear of ridicule.

No, no, the aleeens implant an inability to convice others of what happened to these tragic victims, so that their presence can never be shown, you see.

Kinda like proper DBT's implant an inability to hear things, or so it is alleged.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
Four million alien abductees can't be wrong can they? four......miiiiiilllllliiiiioooonnnnn, heck some of them come back with alien technology embedded in their bodies. We have "hard" evidence to support that. Why are the scientists denying this phenomenon? Four___million____ eyewitness___acounts. It must be fear of ridicule.

No, no, the aleeens implant an inability to convice others of what happened to these tragic victims, so that their presence can never be shown, you see.

Kinda like proper DBT's implant an inability to hear things, or so it is alleged.

Apparently they have also implanted in inability to get a joke in MJF. I guess all that probing worked. I know aliens are real, I've made enough of them to know that. Nothing beats experience.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Kinda like proper DBT's implant an inability to hear things, or so it is alleged.

So DBT's are the result of aliens?!

...?!

From what galaxy?

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
Kinda like proper DBT's implant an inability to hear things, or so it is alleged.

So DBT's are the result of aliens?!

...?!

From what galaxy?

Galaxy 'shit-for-brains' would be my best guess.

Well, we appear to be down to scrabbling and fighting for the marbles in the dark - I'd venture that this thread has run it's course.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Galaxy 'shit-for-brains' would be my best guess.

So every serious psychoacoustic researcher is "shit for brains".

Is this a conspiracy, or more results of the aleeeen invasion?

By the way, the way mind-control rays work is by using metal near you to influence your thinking, so tinfoil hats are focusing the mind-control rays in your head, you know.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Di'ja figure that out with a DBT or an ABX?

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Di'ja figure that out with a DBT or an ABX?

No, how about you?

I actually do things like read journals and understand the meaning of "falsifiable".

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
My argument, as was May's argument, was that scientists were hiding their true beliefs out of fear of ridicule. I simply cited different examples than did May.

No, you cited a different argument. What part of "3,146 scientists believe in global warming" eluded you? Furthermore, May was talking as a witness to something that really happened in her experience. You on the other hand have no idea whether or why some scientists might believe global warming is a hoax. We see anti-audio freaks all the time on these audio boards telling us they are "scientists" and saying things like cables are a hoax, fancy amplifiers and preamps are a hoax, or high resolution audio is a hoax, and 44.1khz Redbook is more than we will ever need. We can only assume as they would state, that they are saying this out of their own true misguided beliefs and deafness of hearing, not "fear of ridicule".


Quote:
But you took one of my examples and showed that the facts got in the way of the argument.

Yes, because your example was false and unsupported. Your argument was refuted.


Quote:
I'm just asking why I should let something as trivial as facts get in the way? Clearly you aren't letting them get in your way. May clearly isn't letting them get in her way.

Wrong. I clearly supported my claim with facts, and May has actually lived her claim. You on the other hand my dear friend Scott, I have yet to see a shred of anything resembling "facts" from you on behalf of your claim. Here's a suggestion: why don't you start by pointing to a study that shows there are more than 3,146 earth scientists today who don't believe in global warming. Then you might start to have a reason to be throwing the word "facts" around like you do.


Quote:
You still aren't getting the jokes. Any of them!

Poor Scott. You're still confused about all of this, I see. Definitely a Perry Caravello performance, I'd say. Even when it was explained the entire movie was a hoax, even after doing the DVD commentary, he still never seemed to quite get it.


Quote:
No wonder you think Machina Dynamica is legit.

Well, since you pretend to care about "facts", where are your "facts" proving they aren't?

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
My argument, as was May's argument, was that scientists were hiding their true beliefs out of fear of ridicule. I simply cited different examples than did May.

No, you cited a different argument.

So let me get this straight. You are now arguing with *me*____about what ____*my*____ argument was?

wow.

Maybe a bag of brilliant pebbles will help you gain some clarity on the absurdity of that.

Fun EEEE

And we haven't even touched on the other layer of fun E. That being the whole argument was a parody. I'm telling you this to your face but I can't see you getting it. You will still think Machina Dynamica is legit and you will still think that I was actually making a sincere argument for bigfoot and a non-existant trend among scientists to hide their true beliefs about global warming out of fear of ridicule. Normally it just isn't funny when the jokes have to be explained. but I'm guessing you will keep me laughing by just not getting it again.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
No, how about you?

I actually do things like read journals and understand the meaning of "falsifiable".

Me? I didn't know it at all. Guess I'll have some catching up to do with TinHat Monthly. Mind sending me the subscription card you have? Or is that classified?

Pages

  • X