I'm nearer to MCR than others on certain points. We can know things outside of the modern scientific method. His example of fire burning might be considered scientific method, or not, depending on your definition. But the point we knew stuff before modern science is well made.
The person hears equipment X is better than Y. That's an observation, fact, and science might explain such an observation in many ways. I think that's a reasonable way to phrase things. Speaking scientifically, theories don't prove other theories "wrong". Observations can demonstrate where a theory's limit lies. There is no "wrong" because there is no "right". Even a theory which explains all currently available observations is not "right". Because future observations may be contrary to those predicted by the theory. The scientific method demands the search for such contrary observations. Theories have degrees of usefulness, that's it. Newton's laws are still used by NASA in certain contexts. Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88345 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
