marcoc1712 wrote: > Who is deciding witch one is strong or weak? We all do. If there is enough evidence, stuff becomes "accepted fact".
> The only evidence about perception one could give is "I fell" or "I > can't feel". The last is weak, becouse if you - or eve majority cant' > fells something, is non that it does not exists... You will never prove > something this way, so better stop discussing it. Just because we can't prove that something doesn't exist doesn't prove that it exists. If you consistently fail to show any evidence that something exists, and accepted knowledge is indicating it shouldn't exist, why should we believe it exists? Do you believe in unicorns? I can't prove they don't exist... > I'm open minded and firm believer that one is honest until proved he is > not and even more, also if you have evidence that someone sometime lie, > this not mean he will always lie or is lying in this special matter. > > You know, I'm liar (how could you say I always lie then...). > > In any case, you moved from evidence matter to people reliability and I > don't think You, me and people in this forum is allowed to discuss > people reliability, is not so fair. No, this is not about necessarily suspecting people of lying (unless you count lying to yourself). I am convinced most people (we are not talking about snake oil vendors here) truly believe they are hearing the differences they claim they are hearing. But should they blindly believe what they think their senses are saying? Which of the two horizontal lines is shorter? 18793 > Other than this, You are not looking for evidences at all here, if was > like that you just asked if someone could feel differences, retaining > yourself by moking people reporting positive result and asking them to > demostrate is possible... > > This witch-hunt climax is not confortable and obviously prevent people > to produce evidences, this is why I first asked not to open this can of > worms, as an example, not so difficult to understand why. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Audio technology is the result of engineering. Engineering is applied science. Not voodoo. You can't design a decent DAC just by throwing resistors in the air and watch how they land. OK, you *can* "design" a decent DAC by buying a suitable chip or board, inserting it in a "aircraft-grade virgin titanium" box and salting it with buzzwords, but that is a different story... > I first admit that not all the people, not in all the systems and not in > any circumstance heard differences betwen flac and wav, but i trust > someone in some systems in some circumstance could, just becouse they > (and I with them) report to. And I trust the Loch Ness monster exists, because people have reported seeing it/him/her. > Any why and how theory could result wrong and change in years, but this > does not means 'evidence' are false, in any matter. Are we talking about evidence, or "evidence"? Real evidence is subject to peer review and constant criticism - and that is a good thing. That is really what scientists mean when they talk about keeping an open mind. Theories are updated based on *validated* evidence, not anecdotes and hearsay. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Filename: ponzo-illusion-cortex-research.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18793| +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104227 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
