Do you believe in Magic?

Thank you, Geoff, for demonstrating my point. I was using the Beetle in the Box as a repurposed analogy. I am very well aware of its original meaning -- as an argument against Internalist theories of meaning, what Wittgenstein called "private language." I wrote about this subject extensively in the course of my PhD. Because my analogy was unclear to you, I will say the same thing plainly...

You are an obscurantist. Like all obscurantists, you have no intention of making yourself understood. Here is an example, taken from your website Machina Dynamica, about your product the Clever Little Clock:

The time signals that are captured on the recording back when it was made are out of synch with the time signals when the recording is played. Those Past Time signals are reproduced through the speakers along with the acoustic information and become entangled, integrated with Present Time signals the listener uses to time-sequence sounds and images in memory. The alien time signals from the past are perceived subconsciously by the listener as a threat, producing fear, anxiety and confusion: the fight-or-flight response inherited from his Prehistoric ancestors. That fear, anxiety and confusion reduce or distort the listener's hearing and visual acuity. The Clever Little Clock counteracts the perceived threat produced by the Past Time signals, improving the listener's hearing and vision acuity by disentangling, dis-integrating the Past Time signals from the Present Time signals in his subconscious mind.

This passage, and many more like it written by you, is an act of obscurantism. I suspect that not a single person other than you understands its meaning. It is possible that even you do not understand its meaning, because it has none.

As for the Beetle in the Box...

The box is empty.

Bryon

A friend once told me "watch the magician's other hand!"

Byron, your statement is not entirely correct, IMO:

"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."

So-called science is often based on assertion backed by "reasonable" arguments, not on evidence. Please excuse the digression that I will use as an obvious example. Let's look at the field of medicine for an analogy -- the issue of silver amalgam fillings. They are 50% mercury. Before mercury is mixed into "amalgam" there is a special safety protocol the dentist is required to follow. But once mercury is in the mouth "science" comes to the rescue and makes mercury harmless using "reasonable arguments". Pseudo-science is evident in many areas of human activity, serving the interests of those with special agendas. This has been true throughout human history.

Science is not "the only widespread human endeavor in history devoted to the systematic detection of errors based on evidence." For instance, herbal medicine is systematically based on empirical truth, not on scientific evidence. It is only in recent history that science has taken up the challenge to "prove" what herbalists have known for centuries. That "proof" is often used for commercial ends -- to promote the patent process.

How is this related to audio? We should not automatically believe everything that comes to us supported by "audio science" -- nor should we disbelieve what comes to us through the human ear without the benefit of "scientific proof". The latter is not ipso facto invalid. IMO. Thank God there are audio phenomena that are not susceptible to measurement. If this were not the case then all the magic would be taken from the music.

Byron c - It's not terribly surprising that you go on as such length on the explanation for the clock since in your OP you expressed disbelief in the explanation for the ERS paper which, relatively speaking, is child's play. I am going on a limb here, but I suspect your PhD is not in electronics, otherwise I doubt you'd be so skeptical of the EMI/RFI explanation for the ERS stuff. As I've already pointed out, there are many other "Magical" devices you might have picked on with greater success.

As for the clock your skepticism doesn't surprise me, your PhD notwithstanding. The explanation, of course, was not written to accomodate anyone's desire for a "satisfying" explanation, which is apparently what you're seeking.

My box contains ideas. Apparently your box really does contain a beetle.

Sabai, you say, "based on empirical truth, not on scientific evidence." This is the weirdest thought I have ever heard. Good science revolves around empirical evidence. Occasionally, that evidence upsets the paradigm that has been developed based on other research over time. But yes, science is often wrong and only with time and further evidence moves forward.

I think your discussion of mercury in fillings was engineering not science.