Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: John, you were sucker-punched, then piled on, by the Usual Suspects.

Posted by Phil Tower on June 9, 2003 at 05:53:43

In Reply to: Re: John, you were sucker-punched, then piled on, by the Usual Suspects. posted by john curl on June 8, 2003 at 08:52:26:

Jenutron has already responded more effectively than I ever could.

I'll simply observe that, in my opinion, your explanation is far from a valid excuse for responding the way you did to a fellow professional. I doubt, in fact, that there is any valid exuse for such a response, particularly if one is attempting to promote productive dialog (which I'm not buying for one second is your true objective).

In addition, I find your characterization of his questions as "sophomoric" to be highly objectionable.

As for Clark and his pet project, I have no idea what that has to do with whether or not his comment was appropriate. And as for his book, no, I have not read it. Does that mean I'm not allowed to comment on anything he says until I have. Does the fact that he has written a book give him special license on this board to make mindless comments without any expectation of retort.

As for absolute polarity, I have been highly sensitive to it for decades. I would not own an unbalanced pre-amp that did not have a polarity switch. I just wish my Rowland Synergy IIe included that switch on its remote control - this in my opinion is a major drawback to that pre-amp.

You seem to believe that because you have a degree you are above questioning. Here is what Carl Sagan said about that:

Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

That quote was from Sagan's Tools For Skeptical Thinking. I think this might be a good place to post the entire list:

Tools for skeptical thinking by Carl Sagan

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true.

Among the tools:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts."

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them.

8. Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle -- an electron, say -- in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof?

10. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

11. The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don't. We let experiment do it.

------Thanks to MonstrousMike for first turning me on to this list.

Candidly, John, I have far more respect for Sagan's view of science than I do for yours.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---