Do you believe in Magic?

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

Bryoncunningham, I think you are right about science ultimately getting it right, but also scientists have interest as well as pressure to publish. Most would not really devote time to why some cables sound better. Why quartz in some place improves music reproduction, in other harms it, and in others does nothing.

I must say that I set a pretty high standard for tweaks. A minor benefit isn't worth the trouble. I have never really understood the very unscientific notion that a panel of people using double blind 30 seconds exposures to music and having to make a same/different decision has any use for me. I have also never understood why anything other than the basic laws of electrical engineering means it must be snakeoil and therefore no one should sell or buy them.