good science, bad science and twaddle

[stolar]

i seem to have caused some stir when replying to a thread on this forum.

some quasi scientific explanations were bandied around and some decidedly incorrect statements were put forward as explanations for whatever the poster was trying to prove.

i subscribe to the notion that if someone published rubbish as a science on a public forum, it needs to be exposed as rubbish for others that may not have the same insight and may take the said rubbish to be good science.

what do you reckon ?

[Avery]

I agree.

But I have no idea of what you are referring too.


Good science can be falsified, bad science cannot.

Twaddle is always twaddle

[Brosh]

I do not know the details of the tread you refer to, however I have always taken the view that what is posted amounts to the collective knowledge based upon lifetimes of experience. Thus when someone states a point, it has the unspoken (unwritten) rider "..I believe that what I am proposing is true". However if it is a "leg-pull", then it needs to be telegraphed as such.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Good, bad and twaddle?

Well, I dunno. It's a bit like someone talking about the effects of muons, Higg's bosons and phlogiston.

What it boils down to, much of the time, is it doesn't matter which is "real..." except to other experts in that particular field. (Self-proclaimed or otherwise.)

To most of us it's just "Oh? Really?" and then we forget about it and go on happily doing our own thing. Unless it's patently obvious that it's misinformation, in which case we like to jump up and down like a congress of baboons, throwing... stuff at each other.

(Rather like our guvmint, ackershully. )

In the main I think that Brosh has the most realistic viewpoint.

[Master Splinter]

Ohhh, audio flame wars - next you'll be saying that valve amplifiers don't produce a better sound than transistors or that you can't hear the difference between broken-in speaker cable and brand new stuff!!!!

[joe greiner]

The way my BS Detector (patent pending - not) works, is that if it sounds like BS, or looks like BS, or if the promoter has a vested interest in the promotion, then it's probably BS. And the BS'er isn't even aware it's BS.

Cheers,
Joe

[stolar]

Ohhh, audio flame wars - next you'll be saying that valve amplifiers don't produce a better sound than transistors or that you can't hear the difference between broken-in speaker cable and brand new stuff!!!!

Sort of, but ..

i had a friend who was into a hi fi stuff and when i called his bluff about green texter on CD rim (anyone remembers the fad ?? ) he said that just because it cannot be measured (the difference the green texter on the rim of a CD makes) it does not mean it is not there and cannot be heard.
This was an excellent point and scientifically valid, lack of proof that something does exist does not equate to the proof of something not existing.

So, as much as I am cynical of the mojo in the silver guitar pick or this or that timber in an electric guitar, if it makes someone happy and that translates to better playing, good luck to them and I agree that it all makes a difference.

so, do not make fun of "run_in" directional audio cables they make someone happy and there is a mother somewhere that loves them

But, I woudl still stand up and call their bluff if they tried to convince the rest of the world that their opinion is better then mine or yours.

The thread i am refering to in my original post is : https://www.woodworkforums.com/f98/au...uitars-124047/

There are some really dodgy "scientific" explanations in there that I felt compelled to rectify.

Nothing too high brow, just very basic and elementary electro magnetic physics.

At least one person got upset for being told that their posting was incorrect and misleading for the prospective audience.

I think that I did the right thing by questioning the incorrect statements but since i got at least one bloke upset I am having some doubts

I am looking for support of my peers to make me feel better or the criticism to make me a better person

[AlexS]

Angels on heads of pins, anyone?

[underfoot]

r or the criticism to make me a better person

alrighty...if you insist...I'll have a go at making you a better person...
...here are some of your quotes from the other thread..
...just thinking that some folks may read them as a tad confrontational

...you have talent for pointing out irrelevant ... (and not reading before responding)

...why are you hell bent on trying to convince us that your opinion is the truth and all the while not providing any relevant proof or even evidence to support it ..

"
....Just because you have not heard it make any difference does not mean that there is none..

....you have not provided any proof in this dicussion so far that your opnion is more valid then those opposing you ..
__________________
Branko
---------------------------------------------------

[stolar]

Thanks underfoot,

I am known to be somewhat blunt in general and i am trying to work on that although at my age I may be fighting a loosing battle

I am not tying to offend, just never learned to make fuzzy feel good words into my sentences.

I also have to admit that I was somewhat annoyed by the amount of incorrect information being offered and maybe that shows

Actually i think that is what you are telling me, isn't it ?

[RETIRED]

If a post annoys you it pays to go and make a cup of tea or coffee and think about the response before the fingers overide the brain.

SOMETIMES it takes 2-3 cups before responding.

[kiwigeo]

The thread i am refering to in my original post is : https://www.woodworkforums.com/f98/au...uitars-124047/


At least one person got upset for being told that their posting was incorrect and misleading for the prospective audience.

I think that I did the right thing by questioning the incorrect statements but since i got at least one bloke upset I am having some doubts

I participated in the thread in question and with due respect the only person I saw getting "upset" was you. You and another poster in that thread disagreed on something.......it happens very day on this and thousands of other forums around the planet.

You posted up detailed explanations of your angle on the subject being argued along with reasons why you think you're correct. Why not just leave it at that and let the other participants in the thread like myself do their own homework and decide for themselves whose explanation they prefer?

Cheers Martin

[rsser]

From someone trained to do science, with all its shortcomings, can I say that the term is used fast and loose, but it's an approach to discovering or confirming/disconfirming something.

And it relies on posing a clear question, using the most rigorous means of gathering data, coming to a conclusion and honestly reporting on this process.

Even then, it may take multiple such processes for a community of scientists to come to some sort of consensus, cos rarely does one study do it for all.

I try to get this across to my students, who are all of the generation that thinks their opinion is a good as anyone else's. And they're right. Opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one. But that's not science.

[stolar]

... Why not just leave it at that and let the other participants in the thread like myself do their own homework and decide for themselves whose explanation they prefer?

Cheers Martin

When it comes to opinions or approaches to subjects that woudl be fine..
As a matter of fact, I am not sure which camp of the two I woudl chose to align with... I can see both points of view and both can be valid depending on what is important to you ...

It was the dodgy science that I took exception to...

I think I see what you are saying, people can check the facts themselves if they really care?
The problem with internet is that some unsuspecting person can stumble upon the thread and take dodgy explanations as correct. Hence this thread.
If you see something that is obviously misleading or result of misunderstanding do you jump in and try to correct it or mind your own business?

I think I did upset Steve (simso) by trying to correct him. It is occurring to me now that maybe it was how I did it rather than what i did, oh well ... no one ever suggested that i should have pursued a career in diplomacy .

[kiwigeo]

From someone trained to do science, with all its shortcomings, can I say that the term is used fast and loose, but it's an approach to discovering or confirming/disconfirming something.

And it relies on posing a clear question, using the most rigorous means of gathering data, coming to a conclusion and honestly reporting on this process.

Even then, it may take multiple such processes for a community of scientists to come to some sort of consensus, cos rarely does one study do it for all.

I try to get this across to my students, who are all of the generation that thinks their opinion is a good as anyone else's. And they're right. Opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one. But that's not science.

Good to see the nation's next generation of scientists are receiving some good grounding in the discipline from teachers such as yourself.