> Science is *not* a religion. Religion is belief based on faith (not > that I'm knocking faith). Science requires proof. Proof is an interesting subject. May we discuss this a little? My theory is that proof is simply 'an observation that you and I agree on'. Proof assumes there exists absolute truth. This is a dangerous position-- it tends to starts squabbles which can escalate into wars. > If you can get an unbiased third party to administer the tests then > we would take it seriously. The word 'unbiased' is problematic. If you take somone with a scientific background, that person is biased by science. If you take someone with a spiritual background, that person is biased by metaphysics. If you take someone with both backgrounds, that person is biased by the synthesis of science and metaphysics. My case is that it is impossible not to be biased, and my evidence is that scientific theories change so drastically over time. What do YOU think? > Neither he nor anyone else on this forum is "disproving" your claim. > For us to disprove it you must first prove it using accepted methods. > That would be those double-blind tests again. "Accepted". There it is again. Anything you derive from what is accepted is scientific and differs from religion. However, the assertion of something as 'accepted' is accepting it as faith. Maybe science is to religion as capitalism is to absolutism. A little more leeway but very similar. Double blind tests can be very useful for a great number of things. However, they have a bias: They neglect 'placebo'. However, we are talking about listening experience here. And as far as consciousness goes, placebo is pretty much all that exists. When you make music, the science is simply good for getting the devices to reproduce it, and perhaps make tools to make physical sounds. But when you make your music, would you agree double blind tests are a way of creating some kind of absolute measure on what good music is? Who would your focus group be? How would you measure 'good'? Which QUESTION would you ask your test? We have reached the limits of science... or haven't we? What do *you* think? > But no one here is going to take you seriously unless > you can offer up proof of what you're saying. I do! I'll take anyone seriously who is saying something I haven't heard a thousand times before. It's how innovation works. Case: Scientists tend to be conformists. Evidence: Not conforming to 'accepted' theories and procedures is grounds for firing scientists in most labs. Case: Conformism is bad for wealth. Evidence: ALL entrepreneurs drive to differentiate themselves or they will sell no products. Novelties often sell well BECAUSE they are new and only later are scrutinized for other uses. Case: Knowledge is a form of wealth. Evidence: Make a sequencer or synthesizer without knowledge. Well used synthesizers can reach out and touch people. That is a form of wealth. Where am I going with this? I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps the bottom line of this is we should use all accepted theory for what it is good for and be prepared to discard it at the blink of an eye when something new turns up. > I've offered a web link > by an engineer showing the frequency response of various tape recorders > versus a low end digital card and you've offered up a web link from a > mastering house doing a lot of hand waving. It's their business to > convince you that they have "golden ears" and that you need to use their > service to get the magical sound that you so desperately need. This all > comes down to one word - proof. How do you know he didn't just make those up? It's likely he didn't, but not certain. Science is useful, not truth. But... That frequency scheme? It was great. Insightful. Thanks for putting it up. Carlo
