|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Re: What are you somking? posted by Soundmind on October 12, 2005 at 07:15:10:
Maybe the homeophathic medicine doesn't do what's claimed but that doesn't mean that there is nothing biologically "active" in it. The test was for only one indication that the medicine claimed to address. It could in fact be quite toxic thus having a negative but equally effective biological activity. With real medicine, the problem of side effects and toxicity are real concerns. Many potential drugs do nothing for a given indication compared to placebo but have toxic effects and/or other side effects. Sometimes these effects are beneficial and the drug continues development for a new health indication.Also, many drugs were discovered by so called "traditional" medicines. Here thousands of years experience found that a certain plant when chewed eased the pain of traveling at very high altitudes. It was also an effective anesthetic for crude surgery. What was it? Why Cocaine of course. People scour the globe looking for promising medicines from nature's "kitchen". Most of course are ineffective despite claims otherwise, but some are very effective. You think they are all synthesized first in a lab??? HA! Once certain classes of effective compounds are known, then the scientists start modifying them and seeing what happens. Occasionally, one is wholly synthetic. So don't dismiss "natural" rememdies out of hand, the drug companies don't.
I only bring this up because you insist on splitting hairs so I will just split one more for you. I could do a complete chemical analysis and find probably half a dozen things that are not biologically inert. So what? My point was simply to show that your analogy was as half baked as the rest of your thinking.
It was also to show that you, in fact, have no idea what level is important to be audible. In the chemical world the levels of "distortion" found in audio gear would be sufficient to shut down a whole production facility.
Hearing is both more sensitive than you give credit and has bigger blind spots than you give credit. If a designer exploits the blind spots and avoids the sensitive spots then distortion can be relatively high but "inaudible"...to a human that is. Maybe the dog will hate it but you see he has a completely different evolution for hearing and thus different sensitivities and different blind spots. Maybe the oscilloscope will hate it too but you see he has no opinion, just the facts.
David Copperfield can make a plane disappear in full view of a large audience. The eye can be fooled easily by misdirection, it is the stock and trade of magicians. If one sets out to deceive, either for entertainment or for personal gain it is well known in psychology that it can be done. That doesn't mean that most optical observations are delusions, in fact most are real. Most auditory observations are also real but the ear is easier to fool and more susceptible to the magician who wants to gain by fooling people.
I would argue that Randi is playing the magician and out to make people fools NOT conduct serious listening studies. Auditory memory is known to be not as good as visual memory and many studies do not, cannot, or will not want to take this into account.
Try again?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: What are you somking? - morricab 10/12/0508:45:30 10/12/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
