Do you believe in Magic?

Indeed I was quoting the goobermeister.

Reading comprehension problems seem to run through many of Sabs posts.

Thanks Bryon.

03-17-12: Geoffkait
If we default to the most skeptical opinions, those with the narrowest definition of the "finite bounds of plausibility," how will that affect progress in many fields of human endeavor? Will we harken back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm?

I can say with supreme confidence that Al’s use of the phrase “finite bounds of plausibility” does not reflect an attitude that “harkens back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm.” You are strawmanning, again, Geoff, and now at preposterous levels. And targeting Al, who is widely regarded as the Exemplar of Audiogon contributors, is strategic suicide. You just multiplied your opponents by 10.

03-17-12: Tbg
Almarg, the only real question is do we all agree as to what is implausible and on how implausible it needs to be to be rejected a priori.

03-17-12: Almarg
The real issue, as both of you alluded to, is where to draw the line between plausibility and implausibility. Obviously the choice of where to draw that line will generally be subjective, debatable, and imprecise."

I respectfully disagree with you, Tbg, that we all need to agree on where to locate the line between what is plausible and implausible. That is partly because, as Al points out, the line is subjective, debatable, and imprecise.

Having said that, the line is not ALTOGETHER subjective, debatable, and imprecise. In other words, there are quite reliable methods for assessing the *prima facie* plausibility of a theory or explanation. Here are some of the considerations…

1. Conformity to a recognized Model of Explanation. By this I mean essentially what I wrote in my post on 3/15:

Nearly all scientifically valid explanations are nomological, mechanistic, or teleological. That is to say, they explain events or entities in terms of underlying LAWS, MICROSTRUCTURE, or FUNCTIONS, respectively. Physics is the paradigmatic example of nomological explanation. Chemistry is the paradigmatic example of mechanistic explanation. Biology is the paradigmatic example of teleological explanation.

Explanations that are presented as scientific, but are neither nomological nor mechanistic nor teleological, are prima facie implausible. Even REVOLUTIONARY theories like General Relativity conform to a recognized Model of Explanation. Geoff’s explanations for Machina Dynamica products do not.

2. A CAUSAL relationship between the explanation and the phenomenon to be explained. Prima facie plausible explanations provide a causal relationship between the thing to be explained (the explanandum) and the thing that does the explaining (the explanans). Geoff’s explanations do not.

3. A large “Circle of Justification” between the theory and data. To some extent, there is always a circular relationship between theory and data, in that the theory provides reason to believe the data and the data provides reason to believe the theory. What distinguishes good explanations from bad ones is that good explanations have LARGE Circles of Justification. That is to say, they involve LOTS of data and LOTS of theory. As the data and the theory become sparser and sparser, and the Circle of Justification becomes smaller and smaller, the explanations that employ that data/theory become more and more questionable. The worst kind of explanation is one in which the ONLY reason to believe the data is provided by the theory, and the ONLY reason to believe the theory is provided by the data. In that case, the explanation is simply AD HOC. For an example of an ad hoc explanation, see any of Geoff's explanations.

4. Entailed predictions. Prima facie plausible explanations entail predictions. This is true even of REVOLUTIONARY explanations. For example, when Einstein created/discovered General Relativity, one of the predictions it entailed was Gravitational Lensing, i.e., the bending of light around supermassive objects like stars, so that you can see what’s behind them. That prediction was famously confirmed when Gravitational Lensing was discovered to be real, lending tremendous credibility to General Relativity. So far as I can tell, Geoff’s explanations entail no predictions whatsoever.

5. Parsimony. Everybody knows this one. Suffice to say, it doesn’t look like this.

6. Independent Corroboration. So far as I am aware, NONE of Geoff’s explanations have been independently corroborated. As discussed by Cbw and me in earlier posts, the standard of REPRODUCIBILITY is the one thing ALL scientifically valid explanations have in common.
____________________________

None of these considerations are definitive determinants of an explanation’s validity or truthfulness, but taken together, they provide a VERY reliable guide to assessing an explanation’s prima facie plausibility. And equally important, none of these considerations eliminates the possibility of REVOLUTIONARY explanations.

I suspect that most or all of the above considerations underlie Al’s assessments of prima facie plausibility. Perhaps “common sense” isn’t the right term. Maybe it’s more like “informed sense.” That is something even more valuable.

Bryon

Thanks, Bryon, for the perceptive and instructive analysis, and for the compliment.

Yes, "informed sense" is a better term than "common sense" for what I was trying to express. It comes down to having a good instinct for where to draw the line separating the plausible from the implausible. Experience, research, empirical assessment, and a good understanding of the underlying technological principles, if applied cautiously and with an open mind, are complementary to each other in improving that instinct.

With regard to the technological element, a good understanding of those principles can help to provide a quantitative perspective on effects that may seem plausible when described qualitatively, but which may or may not be significant quantitatively.

Also, that understanding can help to enable recognition and control of extraneous variables, which may otherwise lead to attribution of a perceived effect to something other than its true cause. It has been my feeling that in many cases of disagreement between those who claim to perceive effects that seemingly make no sense, and those who allege that the placebo effect is in play, what is really going on is a failure to recognize and control extraneous variables, and/or an over-generalization of the applicability of the results.

One word which has not yet been mentioned in this thread is "discipline." Perhaps that's what it all comes down to.

Thanks again. Best,

-- Al

Almaty said,

"The opinions of EE's will differ on these kinds of questions just as they will among the general population. Keep in mind that the majority of the general population would probably consider all high end audiophiles to be at least a little bit wacko :-)

For example, many EE's would assert that all cables, and even all amplifiers, sound exactly the same. Whereas one EE in this thread (me) asserted early on that Bryon's findings with the ERS paper, although not readily and precisely explainable, were certainly not outside the bounds of plausibility.

The real issue, as both of you alluded to, is where to draw the line between plausibility and implausibility. Obviously the choice of where to draw that line will generally be subjective, debatable, and imprecise. For that reason, among others, I said that "broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play." That is the antithesis of "defaulting to the most skeptical opinions."

While EEs by training should have no trouble with many audio related issuses, the wide wide world of controversial tweaks presents different problems for them to get their heads around, as it were. I suspect even ERS paper may give some EEs conniptions, since its effects are so unpredictable. But when an EE wonders into the world of other controversial tweaks, it is often the case that the devices do not lend themselves to easy analysis by those with a strong electronics and engineering background. I actually would not place ERS paper in the same category as the Tice Clock, Mpingo Discs, the Green Pen, Schumann frequency generator, intelligent chip, Demagnetizing and ionization of CDs and LPs, quartz crystals and Silver Rainbow Foil. This is the big paradigm shift that has occurred - we can no longer rely (exclusively) on what we learned in engineering school to correctly assess the "plausibility" of many of these newfangled devices, the operational mechanisms of which appear to lie outside of the relative comfort of the concepts and mathematical formulas found in EE textbooks, or in any textbooks! This is actually the reason these things are called controversial, and why they stir up such, uh, controversy. :-)

Bryon,
When you say "the corruption of medical research for profit" you hit the nail on the head. Medicine has become corrupted by entrepreneurial activity on the part of medical practitioners and pharmaceutical companies. So-called double blind testing can easily be skewed to reach pre-determined results.

The politics of medicine enters the picture regarding many issues. One of the most prominent examples of this is the farce of the ADA calling mercury fillings silver amalgams to avoid legal liability that would be incurred by the ADA and its supporting cast at the FDA. The legal liability has been estimated to be in the area of 3 trillion dollars. Trillion not billion.

"Moms Against Mercury" won a lawsuit against the FDA over this (see autism and ADD) in 2008 but it was conveniently "overturned" by the very same FDA in 2009. Charlie Brown was the courageous lawyer for "Moms Against Mercury".

The ADA turns the most powerful neurotoxin on the planet -- mercury -- into a "controversy" by putting the onus of proof on those who "claim" mercury is toxic to prove that it is in fact toxic. Then they turn science on its head in mercury's defense. In the dental office it is considered deadly -- in the mouth it miraculously becomes neutralized by "amalgamating" it with 35% silver and other metals.

So-called silver amalgam fillings are 50% mercury. They should be called what they are -- mercury fillings. But the ADA tells dentists if they mention the word mercury to a patient they can have their license revoked. This is science in the service of politics and the almighty dollar. The ADA is a revolving door to the FDA. The FDA's dental devision is chock full of former employees of the ADA. This is a prime example of the politics of medicine. There is no conflict of interest. There is one one single interest. And it is not the health of the patient.

Bryon, you note that "Typically, physicians form an initial clinical impression and ignore contradictory evidence." Once again, you hit the nail on the head. The fact is that mercury is the most powerful neurotoxin know to man. The fact is that physicians -- especially neurologists -- never rule our mercury as a cause neurological disease. The whole "scientific" process of "ruling out" which is supposed to be the basis of the diagnostic process is clearly selective in the field of medicine. So-called medical science is essentially politically and financially motivated.

I agree that "conflating scientists with medical doctors is a mistake". There are good scientists and there are good doctors. It is the medical system that is corrupt and that co-opts the medical profession from medical school right down the line.

Returning to audio, I believe what Paul Kaplan was commenting on was not only the necessity for observation, but also on the fact that not everything in audio is measurable. I find it interesting that there have been a number of instances of this recently in Audioland.

John Atkinson of Stereophile has been questioned regarding two of his "measurement" sessions that were contradicted by the reviewers' observations. The two instances I am talking about refer to the April 2011 Stereophile review of the Playback Designs MPS-5 and the recent Stereophile review of the AMR-DP-777. There are many more instances of this dichotomy but these two examples stand out in my mind as good examples of the ear being unsupported by or contradicted by technical measurements. It could be a case of one or the other -- or both the above.

Your interpretation of my remarks is correct: "the scientific method is a SUBSET of "the empirical method." I appreciate your comments.

Audiofeil,
If you were referring to Geoff and not Jack Bybee my sincere apologies for following the wrong tangent on this string.