Do you believe in Magic?

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.

Let's not forget brilliant pebbles, teleportation tweaks, and magic dots.

The very essence and lifeblood of a huckster.