Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
Ruud Broens wrote: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... : : "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message : ... : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : : that not-having-listened in a dbt setting automatically suggests : : they are epiphemeral, imagined rather than actual perceived : : shortcomings. That is just not logically consistent - i'm sure : : that giving it some thought makes that selfevident : : : : That is a strawman, when you put it that way. : : "Not-having-listened" with controls : : for cognitive biases -- whose existence is beyond doubt -- : : means simply that there are *good : : reasons* to doubt the reality of the difference. : : That's if the listening results are taken in isolation. : : There may be supporting reasons to believe the difference was real : : -- for example, if the report is about two loudspeakers, : : the measurable variability of such electromechanical systems : : is great enough to predict with some confidence that : : there will be a real difference. : : : : -- : : -S : : ok, logic 101: : if A implies B, not B does NOT imply *not A. : example: if the sun shines, i won't take my umbrella with me : : you're saying it's like, when i _do_ take my umbrella with me : -it-will-rain :-) : cheerio, : Rudy * oops, that comes from multitasking, not I suppose your point is supposed to be that "affirming the consequent", as it's often called, is a fallacy. That much is certainly true. However, not only is your example confused (you have to use the exact same sentence for A and B in each proposition, for one thing), it's far from clear how this point would apply to the post to which you are responding. In short, if there are possible cognitive biases that could provide an alternative explanation for the results (and we know that there is, at the very least, the potential that such biases could be operating), and you fail to control for them, then there are always going to be good reasons to doubt whether there is actually audible difference, or whether the apparent perceived differences were merely attributable to the cognitive biases. This is just a basic point about experimental methodology and the need to control for variables -- it has nothing to do with the fallacy of affriming the consequent. If you don't take measures to prevent possible alternative causes that might produce an observed effect, you'll never know what the effect is attributable to. It ain't complicated. |
#282
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"johnebravo836" wrote in message ... : : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : ... : : : : "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message : : ... : : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : : : : that not-having-listened in a dbt setting automatically suggests : : : they are epiphemeral, imagined rather than actual perceived : : : shortcomings. That is just not logically consistent - i'm sure : : : that giving it some thought makes that selfevident : : : : : : That is a strawman, when you put it that way. : : : "Not-having-listened" with controls : : : for cognitive biases -- whose existence is beyond doubt -- : : : means simply that there are *good : : : reasons* to doubt the reality of the difference. : : : That's if the listening results are taken in isolation. : : : There may be supporting reasons to believe the difference was real : : : -- for example, if the report is about two loudspeakers, : : : the measurable variability of such electromechanical systems : : : is great enough to predict with some confidence that : : : there will be a real difference. : : : : : : -- : : : -S : : : : ok, logic 101: : : if A implies B, not B does NOT imply *not A. : : example: if the sun shines, i won't take my umbrella with me : : : : you're saying it's like, when i _do_ take my umbrella with me : : -it-will-rain :-) : : cheerio, : : Rudy : * : oops, that comes from multitasking, : : not : : I suppose your point is supposed to be that "affirming the consequent", : as it's often called, is a fallacy. That much is certainly true. : However, not only is your example confused (you have to use the exact : same sentence for A and B in each proposition, for one thing), it's far : from clear how this point would apply to the post to which you are : responding. : : In short, if there are possible cognitive biases that could provide an : alternative explanation for the results (and we know that there is, at : the very least, the potential that such biases could be operating), and : you fail to control for them, then there are always going to be good : reasons to doubt whether there is actually audible difference, or : whether the apparent perceived differences were merely attributable to : the cognitive biases. : : This is just a basic point about experimental methodology and the need : to control for variables -- it has nothing to do with the fallacy of : affriming the consequent. If you don't take measures to prevent possible : alternative causes that might produce an observed effect, you'll never : know what the effect is attributable to. It ain't complicated. yes, yes, is that a 386 you're using ? google it up, been discussed before here. doubt is good, a priori rejection is not , ok ? in short, Rudy |
#283
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
johnebravo836 wrote
Ruud Broens wrote: Ruud Broens wrote : : Steven Sullivan wrote : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : : that not-having-listened in a dbt setting automatically suggests : : they are epiphemeral, imagined rather than actual perceived : : shortcomings. That is just not logically consistent - i'm sure : : that giving it some thought makes that selfevident : : : : That is a strawman, when you put it that way. : : "Not-having-listened" with controls : : for cognitive biases -- whose existence is beyond doubt -- : : means simply that there are *good : : reasons* to doubt the reality of the difference. : : That's if the listening results are taken in isolation. : : There may be supporting reasons to believe the difference was real : : -- for example, if the report is about two loudspeakers, : : the measurable variability of such electromechanical systems : : is great enough to predict with some confidence that : : there will be a real difference. : : : : -- : : -S : : ok, logic 101: : if A implies B, not B does NOT imply *not A. : example: if the sun shines, i won't take my umbrella with me : : you're saying it's like, when i _do_ take my umbrella with me : -it-will-rain :-) : cheerio, : Rudy * oops, that comes from multitasking, not I suppose your point is supposed to be that "affirming the consequent", as it's often called, is a fallacy. That much is certainly true. However, not only is your example confused (you have to use the exact same sentence for A and B in each proposition, for one thing), it's far from clear how this point would apply to the post to which you are responding. In short, if there are possible cognitive biases that could provide an alternative explanation for the results (and we know that there is, at the very least, the potential that such biases could be operating), and you fail to control for them, then there are always going to be good reasons to doubt whether there is actually audible difference, or whether the apparent perceived differences were merely attributable to the cognitive biases. Well, in short, you seek out sonic attribute that appeal to you. These aren't necessarily driven by biases. You made mention of affirming the consequent as a fallacy, use it here. Preferences is not a preference to practice disapprobation of your biases. This is just a basic point about experimental methodology and the need to control for variables -- it has nothing to do with the fallacy of affriming the consequent. If you don't take measures to prevent possible alternative causes that might produce an observed effect, you'll never know what the effect is attributable to. It ain't complicated. Good luck. |
#284
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:33:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Middius has taught you well! You sound like Darth Vader. |
#285
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"paul packer" wrote in message ... : On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:33:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger" : wrote: : : Middius has taught you well! : : You sound like Darth Vader. : hmm, yes, i wondered about if that was what Arny was using*, knowing Middius likes SF :-) R. *more likely, just a coincidence |
#286
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
wrote in message ups.com... Gee, both your reply to me and Arny's reply looks like complete gibberish. You guys look scared. Boon LOOK scared? That seems to be the gibberish statement. I simply would not like to leave off the frequencies below 35 Hz that are present in music. Since I have response that is 3 dB down at 20 HZ, listening to something that cuts off at 35 Hz is a sacrifice I'm not willing to make. |
#287
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : that not-having-listened in a dbt setting automatically suggests : they are epiphemeral, imagined rather than actual perceived : shortcomings. That is just not logically consistent - i'm sure : that giving it some thought makes that selfevident : : That is a strawman, when you put it that way. : "Not-having-listened" with controls : for cognitive biases -- whose existence is beyond doubt -- : means simply that there are *good : reasons* to doubt the reality of the difference. : That's if the listening results are taken in isolation. : There may be supporting reasons to believe the difference was real : -- for example, if the report is about two loudspeakers, : the measurable variability of such electromechanical systems : is great enough to predict with some confidence that : there will be a real difference. : : -- : -S ok, logic 101: if A implies B, not B does NOT imply A. example: if the sun shines, i won't take my umbrella with me you're saying it's like, when i _do_ take my umbrella with me -it-will-rain :-) cheerio, Rudy That's all well and good --but has nothing to do with what I wrote. Want to try again? Focus on the differences between these statements; I've helpfully highlighted them: strawman argument: if you don't use blind methods it means the shortcomings you report *are* imaginary actual realist argument: if you don't use blind methods, it means the shortcomings you report *may be* imaginary. |
#288
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
Sillybot pounds his pulpit. if you don't use blind methods, it means the shortcomings you report *may be* imaginary. What "methods" do you use, Silly? Oh that's right -- none at all. No method of evaluation is good enough for Sillybot. You already know everything sounds the same, so there's no point in any kind of evaluation. Nicely neat and tidy, isn't it. |
#289
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Want to try again? Focus on the differences between these statements; I've helpfully highlighted them: strawman argument: if you don't use blind methods it means the shortcomings you report *are* imaginary actual realist argument: if you don't use blind methods, it means the shortcomings you report *may be* imaginary. This is way too deep for most RAO regulars, Steven. |
#290
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
Arny Krueger wrote
Steven Sullivan wrote Want to try again? Focus on the differences between these statements; I've helpfully highlighted them: strawman argument: if you don't use blind methods it means the shortcomings you report *are* imaginary actual realist argument: if you don't use blind methods, it means the shortcomings you report *may be* imaginary. This is way too deep for most RAO regulars, Steven. I'm not sure what you're burbling about but the alluring statement you find so fascinating above will fall apart. How are you doing with your tail, btw? Any problem ? |
#291
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message : ... : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : : that not-having-listened in a dbt setting automatically suggests : : they are epiphemeral, imagined rather than actual perceived : : shortcomings. That is just not logically consistent - i'm sure : : that giving it some thought makes that selfevident : : : : That is a strawman, when you put it that way. : : "Not-having-listened" with controls : : for cognitive biases -- whose existence is beyond doubt -- : : means simply that there are *good : : reasons* to doubt the reality of the difference. : : That's if the listening results are taken in isolation. : : There may be supporting reasons to believe the difference was real : : -- for example, if the report is about two loudspeakers, : : the measurable variability of such electromechanical systems : : is great enough to predict with some confidence that : : there will be a real difference. : : : : -- : : -S : : ok, logic 101: : if A implies B, not B does NOT imply A. : example: if the sun shines, i won't take my umbrella with me : : you're saying it's like, when i _do_ take my umbrella with me : -it-will-rain :-) : cheerio, : Rudy : : : That's all well and good --but has nothing to do with what I wrote. : : Want to try again? : yeah, what's with those monday morning classes, eh ? one sets up a test with controls and models and procedures in place to get a meaningful result. or at least a result that can be ascribed to those factors that were not invariant. all part of established and adhered to scientific modi operandi. here is my question no. 1: in what way is an EE qualified to set up a test about perception of qualities or differences ? failing that, we have the operationism problem again - you _have_ looked that up, by know, i hope. :: Focus on the differences between these statements I usually focus on what interests ~moi~, monsieur Sullivan :-) like " Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will suffice to objectively establish that.. SS last month" ...no need to continue if there _is not_ in fact a well-done setup, eh ? : : strawman argument: if you don't use blind methods it means the shortcomings you report *are* : imaginary : : : actual realist argument: if you don't use blind methods, it means the shortcomings you report : *may be* imaginary. : i let google work on that, first stated on RAO : ehhm, dec 5, 2005 yeeas, we can savely assume, that's what you've been saying, all along, in good Arny tradition, that is :-) does this mean the word delusional has been scrapped from the Big Borg Codebook, then ? fascinating, captain. Rudy ...to be continued.. |
#292
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message : ... : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : : that not-having-listened in a dbt setting automatically suggests : : they are epiphemeral, imagined rather than actual perceived : : shortcomings. That is just not logically consistent - i'm sure : : that giving it some thought makes that selfevident : : : : That is a strawman, when you put it that way. : : "Not-having-listened" with controls : : for cognitive biases -- whose existence is beyond doubt -- : : means simply that there are *good : : reasons* to doubt the reality of the difference. : : That's if the listening results are taken in isolation. : : There may be supporting reasons to believe the difference was real : : -- for example, if the report is about two loudspeakers, : : the measurable variability of such electromechanical systems : : is great enough to predict with some confidence that : : there will be a real difference. : : : : -- : : -S : : ok, logic 101: : if A implies B, not B does NOT imply A. : example: if the sun shines, i won't take my umbrella with me : : you're saying it's like, when i _do_ take my umbrella with me : -it-will-rain :-) : cheerio, : Rudy : : : That's all well and good --but has nothing to do with what I wrote. : : Want to try again? : yeah, what's with those monday morning classes, eh ? one sets up a test with controls and models and procedures in place to get a meaningful result. or at least a result that can be ascribed to those factors that were not invariant. all part of established and adhered to scientific modi operandi. here is my question no. 1: in what way is an EE qualified to set up a test about perception of qualities or differences ? failing that, we have the operationism problem again - you _have_ looked that up, by know, i hope. :: Focus on the differences between these statements I usually focus on what interests ~moi~, monsieur Sullivan :-) like " Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will suffice to objectively establish that.. SS last month" ..no need to continue if there _is not_ in fact a well-done setup, eh ? : : strawman argument: if you don't use blind methods it means the shortcomings you report *are* : imaginary : : : actual realist argument: if you don't use blind methods, it means the shortcomings you report : *may be* imaginary. : i let google work on that, first stated on RAO : ehhm, dec 5, 2005 yeeas, we can savely assume, that's what you've been saying, all along, in good Arny tradition, that is :-) does this mean the word delusional has been scrapped from the Big Borg Codebook, then ? fascinating, captain. Rudy ..to be continued.. Frankly, I've never been that much of a fan of stream-of-consciousness writing. It tends to bore me. I mention this by way of explaining why I won't be expending the effort to try to parse your latest contribution, above. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#293
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message : ... : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : : : "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message : : ... : : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : : : : that not-having-listened in a dbt setting automatically suggests : : : they are epiphemeral, imagined rather than actual perceived : : : shortcomings. That is just not logically consistent - i'm sure : : : that giving it some thought makes that selfevident : : : : : : That is a strawman, when you put it that way. : : : "Not-having-listened" with controls : : : for cognitive biases -- whose existence is beyond doubt -- : : : means simply that there are *good : : : reasons* to doubt the reality of the difference. : : : That's if the listening results are taken in isolation. : : : There may be supporting reasons to believe the difference was real : : : -- for example, if the report is about two loudspeakers, : : : the measurable variability of such electromechanical systems : : : is great enough to predict with some confidence that : : : there will be a real difference. : : : : : : -- : : : -S : : : : ok, logic 101: : : if A implies B, not B does NOT imply A. : : example: if the sun shines, i won't take my umbrella with me : : : : you're saying it's like, when i _do_ take my umbrella with me : : -it-will-rain :-) : : cheerio, : : Rudy : : : : : : That's all well and good --but has nothing to do with what I wrote. : : : : Want to try again? : : : yeah, what's with those monday morning classes, eh ? : one sets up a test with controls and models and procedures : in place to get a meaningful result. or at least a result that can : be ascribed to those factors that were not invariant. : all part of established and adhered to scientific modi operandi. : : here is my question no. 1: in what way is an EE qualified to set up : a test about perception of qualities or differences ? : failing that, we have the operationism problem again - you _have_ : looked that up, by know, i hope. : : :: Focus on the differences between these statements : : I usually focus on what interests ~moi~, monsieur Sullivan :-) : like : " Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will : suffice to objectively establish that.. SS last month" : : ..no need to continue if there _is not_ in fact a well-done setup, eh ? : : : : strawman argument: if you don't use blind methods it means the shortcomings you : report *are* : : imaginary : : : : : : actual realist argument: if you don't use blind methods, it means the : shortcomings you report : : *may be* imaginary. : : : : i let google work on that, first stated on RAO : ehhm, dec 5, 2005 : yeeas, we can savely assume, that's what you've been saying, all along, : in good Arny tradition, that is :-) : : does this mean the word delusional has been scrapped from the Big Borg Codebook, : then ? fascinating, captain. : : Rudy : ..to be continued.. : : : Frankly, I've never been that much of a fan of stream-of-consciousness writing. : It tends to bore me. : : I mention this by way of explaining why I won't be expending the : effort to try to parse your latest contribution, above. : : : : -- : -S : "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious : fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow shatever blows yur mind, Steve ;-) giving up, waving hands in the air, err parsing attemps - noted :-) R.- |
#294
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
Ruud Broens wrote:
shatever blows yur mind, Steve ;-) giving up, waving hands in the air, err parsing attemps - noted :-) R.- er....quite. -- -S. "babbling brooks get boring too" Sullivan |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies | Audio Opinions | |||
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies | Pro Audio | |||
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies | Vacuum Tubes | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 1/5) | Car Audio | |||
World Tube Audio Newsletter 06/05 | Vacuum Tubes |