Well, on that point, you'll get no argument! But the notion that, because you don't expect something to elicit a change---good or bad, you refuse to try it, runs contrary to scientific inquiry. The audiophile/phool demanding that a :"scientific" double double blind test be the gold standard of accepting as to whether a change is heard and then refusing to conduct the same "scientific" test simply because he/she doesn't *expect* anything to happen is, to put it mildy, just a little inconsistent.
Soulkeeper wrote: > Audiophilia can be many things, but science it is not. You rarely see > 'acoustic engineers' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustical_engineering) bothering to call > themselves audiophiles, and you can't honestly call the majority of > audiophools acoustic engineers. > > Conflating audiophilia with science is like conflating homeopathy or > cryptozoology with science ... wait a minute, I saw 'a great comic > today' (http://www.treelobsters.com/2012/04/365-accomplishment.html) by > the way, 'via' > (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/04/16/tree-lobsters-accomplishment/) > 'Phil Plait's blog' > (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/05/09/science-fare/). > One should give credit where credit is due. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94770 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
