Do you believe in Magic?

Sakai, you are correct, there may be some confusion here.

Tbg, so it wasn't Magic for you, is that what I hear you saying? Of course you know by now I had to burn mine. One can't help wondering how many manufacturers have incorporated the stuff into their components and cables.

03-10-12: Sabai
Regarding science, so-called science has been proven false so many times throughout history that this is where the LOL should often be inserted. IMHO.

There is certainly some truth to this. The history of science is littered with false theories... spontaneous generation, luminiferous ether, phlogiston, vitalism, the caloric theory of heat, Larmarckism, etc. etc.

Having said that, scientific inquiry has also brought us out of the age of bodily humours, celestial spheres, witchcraft, totemism, demonic possession, miasma, phrenology, and innumerable other examples of Magic. And unlike audiophile Magic, those other kinds of Magic had real consequences for real people.

As flawed as scientific inquiry is, it is the only widespread human endeavor in history devoted to the systematic detection of errors based on evidence. Because of that feature, false scientific theories are eventually detected and replaced with better ones. Those "better" theories are themselves often replaced (e.g., Aristotle -> Newton -> Einstein -> Heisenberg -> ?), but that does not mean we must abandon the idea of scientific truth. It means we must abandon the idea of scientific CERTAINTY. And that is a small price to pay for the profound advancements to human knowledge and social justice that science has made possible.

IMO.

Bryon

Outstanding post, Bryon. Beautifully said!

Best,
-- Al

Somebody didn't pick up on the humor of Sabai's remark.

I've said it before and it's worth repeating: a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic.

Natives on some forlorn island believe a camera is Magic and steals their souls. The opposition dismisses controversial tweaks as ritualistic, witchcraft, psychological, hypnotic and insists they disobey all the known laws of science. So, what else is new?

Geoff, trying to have a conversation with you reminds me of something Wittgenstein said...

Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "beetle." No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box...

...the box might even be empty.

bc