Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Science?

> "Chips for chimps" is certainly a derogatory and unscientific way of
> saying YOU don't accept the science behind the IC...

So far, no-one has offered any actual _science_ for the principle of
the Chips's operation, just scientific words used with apparently
little regard for what the words mean. (I say so, BTW, from a biased
position: my bachelor's degree was in pure science, my postgraduate
qualification was in the teaching of science, and I do try to keep
up. So yes, I do have some understanding of what the words mean.)

> ...and therefore those who buy it are idiots.

Only if they do so because they are persuaded by the pseudo-scientific
balderdash offered as an explanation for its operation and not by
their listening experience. But yes, "chumps" is a bit strong.
Perhaps we should have used "marks" or "rubes" but then we would have
lost the alliteration in the title.

Having read and reread Jim's essay over and over in the past few days,
to try to determine what in it so offended Charles Hansen, I must say
that I still feel it a fine piece of writing, perceptive and
well-argued. I understand why some find it offensive, but so what?
A magazine is under no mandate _not_ to offend. In fact, pretty
much everything we publish is found offensive by someone somewhere.
What matters is that my writers write what they feel as strongly as
they can. If you are offended by this policy, I suggest you go read
something more milquetoast, less judgmental in nature.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile




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


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.