In Reply to: Are Established Scientific Methods Too Simplistic for the Complex Nature of Sound and Audio? posted by Todd Krieger on January 29, 2003 at 08:20:16:
How do you feel about science being able to predict weather patterns? I think you have a pretty restrictive view of science and the scientific method. If you feel that your observations are valid and that your hypothesis is a good one, do you not want to test it to see that you're not the only one on your block to so believe? Because science does not provide 100% of the answers does it mean it provides 0%? Science is what brought us, in the greatest measure, to the quality level in sound reproducing devices enjoyed today, and what has allowed tweakers and tinkerers (and I do not use these terms in any derogatory way) to ice the cake. Casual observation is well and good for the person on the listening end. What has it actually brought on the designing and manufacturing end? If small manufacturers can bring out euphonic equipment by improving on existing basic technology in a myriad of small ways is it not because bigger one's (and even equally small ones) replete with "scientists" or "objectivists" have done the heavy lifting? Maybe folks should realise that standing on the shoulders of giants is the order of the day, and, no, those giants are not the folks in marketing. Challenging assumptions has always been a part of healthy science. The view you and many others I read here bring of science is that of a straightjacket or some framework so rigid, used by equally rigid doctrinaires. There is a place in science for intuition. True, imagination is greater than knowledge, but trying to reinvent the world every morning on the flimsiest of pretenses can't get the job done.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Are Established Scientific Methods Too Simplistic for the Complex Nature of Sound and Audio? - middleground 01/29/0313:10:42 01/29/03 (0)