Home General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ General Asylum ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

You're as close to 100% wrong as someone has been in a while!

***I could go on and on about the deficiencies of how people have chosen to apply the scientific method to problems in audio, but suffice it to say that much of this has been pysudoscience.***

Really, now? The CRC tests in Ottawa are "pysudoscience" (sic)? The tests run by Harman are "pseudoscience"? The tests published in JASA are "pseudoscience"? Really? Those are the tests claiming to be science, and I think that the scientific community at large will cheerfully admit that they ARE science.

***Although some chemists and physicist would argue, math is the only true science.***

Mathematics is not science at all. Mathematics is a language that is designed to yield internally consistant results. It is often very useful in describing scientific views, theories, models, and the like, but mathematics is not and has never been science.

A mathematical theory, one that is tested BY EXPERIMENT and shown to be NOT FALSIFIED, may be accepted as a scientific theory, certainly, but the keys to science are FALSIFIABILITY, REPEATABILITY, and CONFIRMATION, as Karl Popper and others have written about extensively.

Internal consistance in and of itself (that is what mathematics offers) IS NOT SCIENCE. It's mathematics, something very important and very useful in and of itself, for sure, but it's NOT SCIENCE, even though it's an incredibly useful tool, both for working with scientific theories and theories destined to be science, as well as in describing theories, conjectures, proposals, etc.

But mathematics is not science.

***When it comes to audio, the scientific method is even less reliable since we do not have precise language to ascribe what is being heard,***

That is simply not relevant. There isn't a full mathmatics of 'what is being heard' indeed, and that would indeed be useful, BUT that is not a scientific issue, nor does it banish tests of hearing from the scientific method, which is, once again FALSIFIABLITY, REPEATABILITY, and CONFIRMATION. (there are other things entailed in those, of course)


***we know very little about how we hear,***

Actually, we understand the peripheral methods quite well, from the function of the pinna/head right to the function of the inner and outer hair cells, how they work, and how they provide the sensitivity and compression exhibited consistantly in SCIENTIFIC testing.


***what the human hearing is accutely attuned to,***

First, you'll have to define what you mean. Again, how we hear, and the basic thresholds of what we here, are, despite your utter misinformation, very well known and quite well understood, documented, and published. What you mean by "accutely attuned to" I don't know, because the only "tuning"(s) demonstrated in the auditory system that are demonstrated are cognative in nature, and not related to the basic hearing apparatus.

***and sound measurements correspondance to human hearing.***

Again, your statement is shown to be false by something as old, hoary, and repeatedly confirmed (as in over and over and over again by newer research, a great deal of which wished to supplant it) by such work as Fletcher (and Munson)'s work on loudness from the 1920's and 1930's.

You are remanded to the following:

Helmholtz work on absolute thresholds.
Fechner's work on delta i/I
Fletcher's book, published in 1995 by the ASA, on his research from 1920's to 1940's, edited by Jont Allen.
Zwicker and Feldkeller's "Das Ohr".
Zwicker's books.
Hellman's articles.
Scharf's books and articles.
Julius Goldstein's articles.
Joe Hall's articles on hearing
Jont Allen's articles on hearing
David Griesenger's articles on hearing

and AFTER you have read that material, all of which is germane to your mistaken conclusions that I've noted above, please go read

Karl Popper

on the scientific method, and find out why mathematics is not science, science is not mathematics, and what the "scientific method" really is.

Finally, after you've done all that, you can explain WHY the results shown in real psychoacoustical work and audiometric work are not science, or admit that they are, and that you're simply wrong.

You've insulted a great deal of the entire scientific fraternity with your rather random scattergunning. Perhaps you should check your own premises before you launch off another attack.

JJ

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.

[ Top 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 ]