[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 23, 12:36=A0pm, Jim Gibson wrote:
In article , Scott
wrote:

No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound
have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty
argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence
not on theories. That is all I =A0am saying.

The problem with evidence-only arguments is that evidence can be faulty
or misinterpreted. This is why people of a scientific persuasion insist
on double-blind, controlled testing.

It is why they insist on verifiability. That comes in many forms. I
agree with science on this. Didn't think I needed to mention it.



In order for human knowledge to advance, both theory and evidence are
necessary.


That would be fine if we were talking about human knowledge. But I
wan't talking about advancing human knowledge. I wasn't arguing that
theories should not be put forth in the light of evidence and then put
to the test. I am all for it. It's science. My argument has nothing to
do with that though. It was purely an argument that one can not attack
an observation becuae the observer does not offer a theory behind the
observation. It has no bearing on whether or not the observation was
accurate or not. The acid test of cable sound simply has nothing to do
with whether or not people who believe it is real have a theory as to
how it works. I know how sicnece works and I can say with some
certitude that the observations are judged by their varifiability and
nothing else. There is no requisit that one has to have a theory for
an observation to be real or imagined.




Scientific theories often start with simple observations.
These lead to theories, which can be tested by experimentation and more
observation. The theories, in order to contribute to human
understanding, should make predictions that can be tested and are
falsifiable. Experimental results must be reproducible by independent,
objective observers.

Without a theory of why cables can sound differently, then even the
best experiment can only be said to show differences between the cables
being tested. No generalization to other cables not under test can be
made.

That is true. But it remains true even if those who believe in cable
sound offer up any kind of theories. Claims of cable sound are
testable. No need to demand a theory from people making such
observations.
Just put the observation to the test.