1. Home
  2. tech-talk
  3. 135904-110926

Talk but not walk?

Hi Guys

This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?

I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?

You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?

I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?

thanks, be polite

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net


michaelgreenaudio
glupson
1,794 posts
 
geoffkait,

I have to thank you. Even you can make me learn about new things and I honestly appreciate it. Not making it up at all.

I looked up Wikipedia page for Marcello Truzzi who you quoted at some length about his views on skepticism or, what you seem to have a perservating interest in, pseudoskepticism.

The part about that skepticism topic was nicely written in an attempt to impress but otherwise boring and, in my view, sufficiently meaningless so I will not recommend it to others nor will I quote it in the future.

The part I would like to thank you for is that I learned the following:

"Truzzi was Keynote Speaker at the 1st annual National Roller Coaster Conference, "CoasterMania", held at Cedar Point Amusement Park, Sandusky, Ohio - 1978. On the subject of riding in the front vs riding in the back of a roller coaster, he said:..."
The very existence of a National Roller Coaster Conference "CoasterMania" is what I find interesting. I will surely mention it and quote above sentence in the future.

Thank you, I could not have made that without you.

Do you happen to know how they found him? It was a pre-Google time. How could you find a guy to speak at your roller coaster conference?


However, as I mentioned to you before, your references are often revealing.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
Gloopson, 

Whatever. Slow day at Target? ⭕️
glupson
1,794 posts
 
geoffkait,

I think you used that one before. Yawn.

Of course, I am not sure what it really means and how it would pertain to me.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
Hi, all. Here’s the cut and paste of the intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery. Enjoy. 

“What is “debunkery?” Essentially it is the attempt to debunk (invalidate) new fields of discovery by substituting scientistic rhetoric for scientific inquiry.

While informed skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method, professional debunkers — often called “kneejerk skeptics” — tend to be skeptics in name only, and to speak with little or no authority on the subject matter of which they are so passionately skeptical. At best, debunkers will occasionally expose other people’s errors; but for the most part they purvey their own brand of pseudoscience, fall prey to their own superstition and gullibility, and contribute little to the actual advancement of knowledge. As such, they well and truly represent the Right Wing of science.

To throw this reprobate behavior into bold — if somewhat comic — relief, I have composed a useful “how-to” guide for aspiring debunkers. This manual includes special sections devoted to debunking extraterrestrial intelligence, alternative healing methods, astrology and “free energy.” I spotlight these fields not because I necessarily support all related claims, but because they are among the most aggressively and thoughtlessly debunked subjects in the whole of modern history.

Many of the debunking strategies laid bare here have been adapted nearly verbatim from the classic works of history’s most remarkable debunkers. Though they often cross the threshold of absurdity under their own steam, I confess I have nudged a few across it myself for the sake of making a point.

As for the rest, their fallacious reasoning, fanatical bigotry, twisted logic and sheer goofiness will sound frustratingly familiar to those who have dared explore beneath oceans of denial and disingenuousness, and have attempted in good faith to report their observations.”
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
Help! What the heck is a dog-in-a-bone? 
More to discover