Dogmatism in Science

gregz

gregz

Full Audioholic
I was never into mainstream politics. I could never choose one side of a polarized issue that I could fully agree with.

And so it is with audio.

As a degreed propeller-head, I have a natural distain for snake oil and cooked up theories that claim to be scientific, then turn around and say science can't fully explain how it all works. And junk science never passes a double blind or placebo test. Never.

At the same time, I can't quite adhere to the extremist philosophy that basically dictates "if you can't measure it with instruments, and you can't prove it scientifically, then it doesn't exist. (Unspoken: I don't care what you think you heard; I'm sure you're just fooling your ignorant self)."

The problem with junk science is easily definable. The arguements only begin when a specific product or theory is nominated for the category.

On the prove-it or move-it engineering side, the problem is one of attitude more than explicitly spoken words. While the articles I've read on the faith of snake oil interconnect wires were very informative and enlightening, they had the undertone of a different kind of faith - one of scientific dogmatism.

No, I'm not defending nor attacking either side. Those articles were well written and level headed, and well defended with established theory. However, I think it's just as important to keep an open mind and remember Karl Popper's words that "nothing can actually ever be proven, only disproven." Once something is said to be proven, the theory becomes a type of religion. Conversely, if something cannot be disproven, but CAN be recreated under controlled conditions, then it stands further consideration no matter how improbable.

The tendency for modern engineers to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to something without hard data is all too great. "Where's the theory behind that? Where's the statistical proof? Can it be measured? (Unspoken: I dismiss it then, and lump it into some category peghole)."

It's not that any particular product or theory out there is being unjustly hanged. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's the closed minded attitude that doesn't think it's closed that is the real problem.

So where do I stand?
I personally believe it's possible to hear something the can't be measured. But what I REALLY mean by "can't be measured" is that it's possible we don't know how to measure it YET - and if this were the case, it would be quite likely because we're not looking in the right place - not because the parameter involved some mystic new energy that has hither gone unnoticed by science.

I also believe that something does not need to be written up in a paper in order to be true. Prior to college, we learn by experience and observation of what we see and hear. In college we learn that half of what we thought we knew was bogus, and we're given an entire system of learning tools. After college, we stop learning unless its' from someone who has credentials. Ok, that's an exxageration, but you get my point.

And finally, I'm personally not going to upgrade to any expensive audio accessory or equipment that I can't hear the difference through with my own ears in at least a blind test. But just because I can't personally hear it, I will never tell you that you can't hear it either.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
gregz said:
So where do I stand?
I personally believe it's possible to hear something the can't be measured. But what I REALLY mean by "can't be measured" is that it's possible we don't know how to measure it YET - and if this were the case, it would be quite likely because we're not looking in the right place - not because the parameter involved some mystic new energy that has hither gone unnoticed by science. .

Why do you believe this and not know this? Have you heard something that have yet to be measured? If so, can you demonstrate your ability to hear this? In a credible manner? No, you are right, it doesn't necessarily need to be published in a peer paper but needs to be demonstrable or it cannot be studied to find the unknown parameter.
Or, you believe that there is someone out there who can do this, demonstrate audible differences or the ability to hear it- same thing, if you personally cannot?
 
Yamahaluver

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General
I was last tested to hear up to 22KHz by two reputed labs in NYC, now according to modern medical science (read licensed quackery), this is not feasible. there are no absolutes in science either and it has a long way to go, just because we cant conceive it in our limited realm of understanding doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
 
S

sjdgpt

Senior Audioholic
I can taste the difference (increase) in the amounts of chlorine that is added to my municipal water supply.

Swear I am right.

But they tell me I am only right 50% of the time.



Does that mean I am wrong the other 50% of the time?
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
gregz said:
At the same time, I can't quite adhere to the extremist philosophy that basically dictates "if you can't measure it with instruments, and you can't prove it scientifically, then it doesn't exist. (Unspoken: I don't care what you think you heard; I'm sure you're just fooling your ignorant self)."
That is a typical cyborg logic. What can't be measured can't exist. Eveyrthing is black or white, 0 or 1. Something many so-called audio pundits in this forum and elsewhere adhere to with bigotrous abandon.

There's a gaping difference betwseen healthy skeptism and closed-book bigotry. I think the former is essentially the correct scientific attitude. The latter, I don't care about. The scientific community never closed the book on the smallest particle in the universe so they ended up discoveing particles much smaller than the electron.

Sceintists can't still map-out 50% of the human brain's morphological and psychological functions. I read somewhere that only 20% is understood. So in a hobby that makes use of the brain that leaves 80% a mystery, the field is quite open. What is often labeled snake oils may contain some element of veracity no prevailing scientific measure can yet ascertain. If one person says he hears an improvement on this or that snake oil claim, I can dismiss that as just another prejudiced perception. But if a hundred or thousand poeple say the same thing, I'll suspend judgement. Afterall, this hobby is a personal indulgence that has all the room for prejudiced perceptions as diverse as the people in it. Who is right, as long it satisfies his personal aural standards, doesn't matter. In short, it's a hobby where science has little relevance for me.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
gregz said:
At the same time, I can't quite adhere to the extremist philosophy that basically dictates "if you can't measure it with instruments, and you can't prove it scientifically, then it doesn't exist. (Unspoken: I don't care what you think you heard; I'm sure you're just fooling your ignorant self)."
That is a typical cyborg logic. What can't be measured can't exist. Eveyrthing is black or white, 0 or 1. Something many so-called audio pundits in this forum and elsewhere adhere to with bigotrous abandon.

There's a gaping difference betwseen healthy skeptism and closed-book bigotry. I think the former is essentially the correct scientific attitude. The latter, I don't care about. The scientific community never closed the book on the smallest particle in the universe so they ended up discoveing particles much smaller than the electron.

Sceintists can't still map-out 50% of the human brain's morphological and psychological functions. I read somewhere that only 20% is understood. So in a hobby that makes use of the brain that leaves 80% a mystery, the field is quite open. What is often labeled snake oils may contain some element of veracity no prevailing scientific measure can yet ascertain. I am not saying all do, but I keep an open mind. If one person says he hears an improvement on this or that snake oil claim, I can dismiss that as just another prejudiced perception. But if a hundred or thousand poeple say the same thing, I'll suspend judgement. Afterall, this hobby is a personal indulgence that has all the room for prejudiced perceptions as diverse as the people in it. Who is right, as long it satisfies his personal aural standards, doesn't matter. In short, it's a hobby where science has little relevance in its enjoymnet. An open mind allows so much opportunities for enjoyment in this hobby.
 
Tom Andry

Tom Andry

Speaker of the House
But if a hundred or thousand people say the same thing, I'll suspend judgment.

Just because we can't measure a thing doesn't mean that we can't measure the perception of a thing. If a hundred or thousand people say the same thing, we should be able to put them in a controlled environment and record their perceptions. Just because we can't measure the actual phenomenon directly doesn't mean we can't show that one exists. This is the essence of psychological research.
 
M

miklorsmith

Full Audioholic
Good Thread! This ties together some of the fundamental differences that have been illuminated in different shades over the last few months.

I'm told I can't hear the difference between amplifiers because million-dollar tests have shown them to be the audibly identical. Recently, because of a trip to the shop, I've gone from my PS Audio HCA-2 to a $1,000, 10-year-old Audiolab, to a $300, 10-year-old NAD, back to the Audiolab, finally returning to the HCA-2.

If the testing shows no difference, the tests are broken, fellas. Can't tell you where, I'm blaming the brain. Stereophile writers have speculated that the brain adapts too quickly for a blind test to work. I'll buy this. Each switch of my amplifiers was a large change from the last. I was planning to leave the NAD in place for a couple weeks and I couldn't even stand it for one day. The Audiolab was better and I didn't think the HCA-2 would improve on it much but it did. Unquestionably.

I clearly hear the difference between well-burned CD-R's and the originals. Now that my system is whole again, the testing I promised is soon to come. I may change my mind some about the effectiveness of testing if I can positively ID these discs. If not, it goes straight into the can.

Lithe-model-applied-cream-jokes aside, Walker's SST kicks tail. For you testers, it has a 3 - 5 db gain potential which has been measured. Vibration control, inside and outside components lends additional focus to the sonic picture.

Cable upgrades have been productive, but not to the same level as the previous changes.

Gregz'z makes excellent points on both sides of the aisle and his view is more even-handed than most of us, me included. I like av-philes differentiation between skepticism and bigotry. Yamahaluver and mrnomas make good points about the unknown. I'd like to see quantification of space and dimension in reproduced music, both of which the NAD was sorely lacking.

Straying too far in the optimistic "dollars spent equals commensurate sonic return" camp will make you poor. Going too far in the other direction Severely Limits your upside potential. Seriously, if you think your electronics and all things related don't affect the final picture, you may wind up with a decent sounding system but you will never achieve greatness.
 
M

MDS

Audioholic Spartan
I just have one question. How do you define 'well burned cd-r'?

Have you ever burned a cd-r and then re-ripped it and compared the waveform to the original in a wave editor? I have ripped and edited thousands of cds and with my setup the burned cd is identical to the original.

It is true that the brain adapts to sound very rapidly. But why is it that that is given as a reason for why amps/cd-rs/pick your component definitely sounds different and blind tests can't pick up those subtle differences? Couldn't it also be that ones own personal biases coupled with the brain's tendency to adapt quickly makes it easier for one to convince themselves that they heard the improvement they were looking for?

Blind tests are meant to eliminate biases. I would bet you couldn't reliably pick one amp or cd-r over another in a blind test. Many have tried and to date not one person has been successful.
 
M

miklorsmith

Full Audioholic
See separate thread on CD-R's. There's enough there to choke a horse, on both sides.

The question about brain tendencies vs. "objective" truth is the core of the debate. My opinion (so far) is that the tests are flawed, through no fault of rigor in testing. If one has heard detail in a prior listening, it is possible the brain tricks you, filling in detail from prior memory. Can I prove it? No. Can you disprove it? No. (Thanks Gregz).

I say this is a push, where others will say it closes the case. In my amplifier case though, my brain expected little difference. This came off the heels of a heated debate about amplifiers. I thought I would strain to hear differences. I wanted to keep the NAD in residence until the HCA-2 came back. My experience was contrary to both my expectations and desires.

I realize this proves nothing. I am merely expressing My opinion based on My experience.

It is possible, but unlikely and nearly incomprehensible that the entire audio business (speakers excluded) is bunk. If all the research, money, producers, reviewers, and consumers are building and buying all this stuff for sometimes incredible sums of money for what amounts to little more than jewelery, this has got to be one of the greatest conspiracies of all time. All based on false expectations/hopes of value? Sounds like a groundbreaking psychological study. And the Holy Grail of marketing. Who's the skeptic now?
 
dsa220

dsa220

Junior Audioholic
Gregz,

Good stuff, could not agree more, there is so much dogma in both camps anymore, that sometimes this hobby is just no fun. Over my 20+ years in this hobby, I have formed many opinions about audio and now audio/video technology, and you pretty much summed it all up. I truly believe that more people belong in this [middle] camp than the other two; unfortunately, it’s the ones in the extremes of each of those camps who have the loudest mouths and the hardest heads!

I recently had a run in with people from each camp concerning my system.

On one occasion, one individual [who was a friend of a friend] came over to spend an evening of music listening noticed my main front speakers sat on Tip-Toes (3 per speaker). He then proceeded to go off on some tirade about how stupid it was and that anyone who believed that they make any difference didn’t know anything and blah, blah, blah. Once he was done, I pointed out that they brought the tweeter in each speaker closer to the ear level when sitting in my preferred listening seat. I then played a piano piece with and without the Tip-Toes in place, and once he heard the difference, he then shut-up for the rest of the evening.

But my favorite part was at the end of the evening, he thanked me for an enjoyable evening, he made a comment about ‘at least we did not have to listen to any tube equipment (like in my friends system)’. This started my friend to chuckle, and I pointed out that the entire evening he had been listen to albums/cds/sacds through a tube pre-amp. I even had to remove the top cover to show him the 5 glowing tubes inside the chassis to prove to him that I was not joking.

We have another friend who belongs to an audio society that I use to attend from time to time. This guy belonged to the ‘tweak of the week’ club. He has things like cable cradles so that the speaker cables did not touch the floor, some special liquid you place on certain components inside your equipment and one it dried was suppose to make a huge difference (makes a $300.00 receiver sound like a $3000.00 amp), etc… I thought he was going to have a coronary in my living room when he spotted the switchbox that I use to switch between my 2-channel pre-amp and the front pre-out on my HT receiver (both use the same front amp to drive my main speakers). While he could easily tell the difference between my pre-amp and that of my receiver, he could not determine the difference when I had the switchbox in the system and when I did not.

The sad part is that those on the extreme ends of both camps have more in common than they would want to admit, both are traveling on long journeys looking for answers to support their claims and ridiculing others for not thinking as they do. As for me, I am tired of the traveling; I’ll just sit back and enjoy some music.
 
S

Steve1000

Audioholic
Interesting....

My wife can tell municipal water from home-filtered water about 100 percent of the time when I blind test her (and believe me, I make every effort to make a fool of her). But I can never tell the difference when she blind tests me.

How is this relevant? Good question! :eek:

sjdgpt said:
I can taste the difference (increase) in the amounts of chlorine that is added to my municipal water supply.

Swear I am right.

But they tell me I am only right 50% of the time.



Does that mean I am wrong the other 50% of the time?
 
Tom Andry

Tom Andry

Speaker of the House
One thing to keep in mind about testing: It is extremely difficult to be sure (especially when the effects are subtle) that what you are measuring is not a product of some extraneous source. In psychological testing this is called a confound (or confounding variable). The most common one that is discussed on this list is expectancy effects (when you hear a difference because you expect to hear a difference) and experimenter effects (when you hear a difference because the person switching between the sources expects you to hear a difference and sends off cues that you consciously or unconsciously pick up on). Even when you control for these effects (usually using double-blind methodology), there are a myriad of other sources that are harder to control for or even predict. That is why replicibility is so important. If you heard a difference once, that is something. But if 100 people at 25 different times hear the same (or similar) difference, you know you are measuring a real phenomenon.

Lastly, if you run double-blind, completely controlled experiments with enough people, statistically, you will eventually measure a difference, even if no difference exists. It’s when someone latches on to that one positive result with no corroborating evidence yelling from the mountaintop “See! my $5k a foot speaker wires DO make a difference” that does disservice to the rest of the audio community.
 
M

MDS

Audioholic Spartan
Mrnomas, you explained it perfectly! I personally feel there are so many variables, controlled and uncontrolled, that it is pretty much a waste of time to even bother.
 
Tom Andry

Tom Andry

Speaker of the House
that it is pretty much a waste of time to even bother .


Personally, I think the whole point IS to bother! If there is a $1.00 piece of equipment that is going to make a significant improvement on the sound of my system (heck, for a buck it could make an itty, bitty difference and I'd be ecstatic), I want to know about it. What I don't want to have the masses out there tricked into spending a bunch of money on useless products and upgrades. If some high-end tweaker wants to spend $15k on speaker wire, that’s their business. They’ve done the research that has satisfied them that the wire is worth $15k. Double-blind testing is not going to convince them otherwise. However, it may help Joe Schmo save a buck or two (thousand) and help you and I improve our systems. Plus, it’s fun to argue about! :D
 
Beegowl

Beegowl

Junior Audioholic
Definitely a philosophy thread. Brings to mind all kinds of questions about measuring reality and objectivity. In light of the way the human mind and senses work, and the infinite varieties of perceptual differences, and skill differences, it's a wonder any two human beings ever come to any agreeable objective conclusions. Maybe they don't, and that's one of the defining characteristics of humanity, maybe...

The conclusion I've reached, FWIW, is, spend within your budget on equipment that demonstrates scientifically positive aspects and also sounds good to you. Then, upgrade when you can afford it. Tweak to your heart's content, because that's part of what makes this hobby fun. Argue about it, because that's also part of the fun.

Maybe Bill Gates has the best system money can buy, but how does he know it's the best? :D
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Yamahaluver said:
I was last tested to hear up to 22KHz by two reputed labs in NYC, now according to modern medical science (read licensed quackery), this is not feasible. there are no absolutes in science either and it has a long way to go, just because we cant conceive it in our limited realm of understanding doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Actually, I am not sure who said 22kHz if not possible?
J. Stewart of Meridian and another have stated some can hear 26kHz. So what? Not useful skill a sthe threshold pf detection at 20kHz is around 100dB spl according to J. Stewart and musical harmonics are below this.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Steve1000 said:
How is this relevant? Good question! :eek:
Not much since who said municipal water was like bottled water or had no differences.
Consumer Reports tests these waters periodically. While they do find differences by the tasters, interestingly they usually prefer municipal water of some cities more so than bottled waters.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
mrnomas said:
One thing to keep in mind about testing: It is extremely difficult to be sure (especially when the effects are subtle) that what you are measuring is not a product of some extraneous source. In psychological testing this is called a confound (or confounding variable). The most common one that is discussed on this list is expectancy effects (when you hear a difference because you expect to hear a difference) and experimenter effects (when you hear a difference because the person switching between the sources expects you to hear a difference and sends off cues that you consciously or unconsciously pick up on). Even when you control for these effects (usually using double-blind methodology), there are a myriad of other sources that are harder to control for or even predict. That is why replicibility is so important. If you heard a difference once, that is something. But if 100 people at 25 different times hear the same (or similar) difference, you know you are measuring a real phenomenon.

Lastly, if you run double-blind, completely controlled experiments with enough people, statistically, you will eventually measure a difference, even if no difference exists. It’s when someone latches on to that one positive result with no corroborating evidence yelling from the mountaintop “See! my $5k a foot speaker wires DO make a difference” that does disservice to the rest of the audio community.
Good post, right on.
As you said, large enough subject will have a positive outcome just by chance ;) But can they repeat it? That is the real test :)
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top