Wooden knobs for improved resolution?
And wrt jitter
OFFTOPIC WARNING ----
This is where we disagree. Everything except speakers can be tested pretty easily scientifically (thankfully). With speakers I am not sure how you non subjectively test them (i suppose several microphones with some test equipment might work but i dont know). Most things in biology are tested using replicable tests because it is not possible to see every step of a process.BobDog wrote:My point is that the testing and science of audio is so much in its infancy, it lies closer to PoliSci than, say, physics. As such, expanding our knowledge of audio will be much like that in the other soft sciences: use replicable test data whenever it is available, but do not be afraid to use other data as well and be willing to incorporate the latter into your posterior belief set.
Straw man argument alert!!! Suspension can and has been tested on this very site several times thanks to MikeC. He doesnt simply do handwaving, he does a lot of work that has obviously led to the respect a lot of people hold for him and the crew at SPCR. WRT stones, no I dont need you to tell me that theyre garbage, I can tell that theyre garbage. This is because I use logic and my understanding (however limited) of science.BobDog wrote:In fact, as I have now said MANY TIMES ON THIS THREAD, I am easing up on the extreme audio experience (at least for a while) and will be unlikely to be spending time and money on such experiments in the foreseeable future. That said, I would think that people like tay would be pleased that I took the time to test shakti stones and fond them wanting--why he'd flame me for testing and honestly reporting the results remains quite confusing to me. That is like saying the idea that I think that HDD suspension is silly so I will NEVER try it (despite many people having said they tried it successfully because I am sure that they are ALL just a bunch of inveterate modders deluding themselves).
Right I do understand english, although obviously not as well as a political scientist. You dont need to repeat what I pasted. I understood what I read. Thinking someone is an idiot doesnt mean that you dont understand them.BobDog wrote: I don't want to hijack this thread again to get into a discussion of Lakatos with tay, whom he clearly does not understand at all (although I think a thread devoted to a meta-theoretical discussion on Lakatos on a silent computer forum would likely be a first !). I will, however, try and briefly clear up a few things:
Right because marxism can be tested to the same standards of proof as newtonian mechanics.BobDog wrote: (1) Lakatos is not comparing the theories, he is comparing the investigative form and standards of proof under which these theories operate.
(2) - simply words
(3) - simply words
(4) - simply words
(5) - I had to look up rubric, but anyway -- can you explain how Marxism and Freudian mental masturbation can be tested like newtonian mechanics and relativity. I know how to test the latter two, but not the former.
(6) - Marxism began as a research program? No it began as a man expanding (verbosely) on sentiments that a lot of humanity has shared. Its in our genes. It has nothing to do with a scientific research program and never will.
(7) - How about electromagnetic theory as Gorsnak has already pointed out.
OK I am about to lose it. Lakatos is simply stating what scientists do, and then adding a bunch of horses**t to it. By introducing him into the discussion I am arguing you are doing the same. I love science and loathe people like Lakatos. He's adding nothing to the sciences (maybe the pseudo sciences but I dont know much about them). Scientists are well versed in THEIR scientific method. Lakatos can come and write some nicely worded paper on it, but at the end of the day its irrelevant. Maybe he's relevant to people who want to hijack the word science to describe what they do but not to any scientists that I've ever read (other than Gould of course which is dissapointing).Still, I think we can hold ourselves to the standards of Lakatosian tests and proofs; I advocate a Bayesian approach to doing so.