Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 10:13:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 10:22:40 GMT
Please define your terms  Magic as in happenings outside the realms of physics - no and I've voted that way. Magic as in the effect of music, art, books, good food and pleasant company - absolutely |
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Jul 18, 2014 10:27:08 GMT
I think you are supposed to read whatever is at the end of that link in the OP. I haven't
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 18, 2014 10:27:41 GMT
That Kirk bloke is an idiot .
Under no reasonable rules of logic and understanding does what Andy Madden say amount to a belief in Magic . Additionally a belief in magic is not contentious .
I believe in Magic , I have seen Paul Daniels on TV and my 8 and 6 year olds have done magic tricks .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 10:31:00 GMT
I think you are supposed to read whatever is at the end of that link in the OP. I haven't I did but I didn't really learn anything  |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 18, 2014 11:05:27 GMT
The question is meaningless as it's not about magic. Much more likely that he's been quoted out of context, which is very poor journalism.
I don't believe in magic but I know from experimentation that digital cables can sound different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 12:07:55 GMT
Please define your terms Magic as in happenings outside the realms of physics - no and I've voted that way. Magic as in the effect of music, art, books, good food and pleasant company - absolutely I think the author of the article means magic as in your first definition, i.e. "the supernatural", so your vote is valid  |
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jul 18, 2014 12:11:04 GMT
I believe in magic in a young girl's heart, how the music can free her whenever it starts. And it's magic if the music is groovy, it makes you feel happy like an old-time movie. I'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul, but it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout-a rock and roll.  |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 18, 2014 12:17:56 GMT
Here comes the supernatural anaesthetist - For Slinger .  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 12:25:34 GMT
The question is meaningless as it's not about magic. Much more likely that he's been quoted out of context, which is very poor journalism. I don't believe in magic but I know from experimentation that digital cables can sound different. I think you should vote Yes then. If you think USB, HDMI and ethernet cables make a difference to the sound of a system, and there is no scientific explanation for how this could be the case, it must be a supernatural explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jul 18, 2014 12:39:11 GMT
I believe in magic in a young girl's heart, how the music can free her whenever it starts. And it's magic if the music is groovy, it makes you feel happy like an old-time movie. I'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul, but it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout-a rock and roll. Nice They made some great tracks |
|
|
|
Post by yomanze on Jul 18, 2014 12:45:40 GMT
The question is meaningless as it's not about magic. Much more likely that he's been quoted out of context, which is very poor journalism. I don't believe in magic but I know from experimentation that digital cables can sound different. I think you should vote Yes then. If you think USB, HDMI and ethernet cables make a difference to the sound of a system, and there is no scientific explanation for how this could be the case, it must be a supernatural explanation. No, it is simpler than that. It is because we do not have the scientific capability to be able to measure it. Like Mr. Spock said: instruments can only measure what they were designed to measure. Must admit I haven't played around with computer cables though... I just apply common sense and use very short SATA-3 cables and a filter on the optical drive in my media PC and some CAT5e Ethernet cable. |
|
|
|
Post by yomanze on Jul 18, 2014 12:48:31 GMT
Science is constantly disproving itself and rejecting old "proofs" for new ones. Science is far more subjective than most people realise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 12:50:44 GMT
I think you should vote Yes then. If you think USB, HDMI and ethernet cables make a difference to the sound of a system, and there is no scientific explanation for how this could be the case, it must be a supernatural explanation. No, it is simpler than that. It is because we do not have the scientific capability to be able to measure it. Like Mr. Spock said: instruments can only measure what they were designed to measure. Must admit I haven't played around with computer cables though... I just apply common sense and use very short SATA-3 cables and a filter on the optical drive in my media PC and some CAT5e Ethernet cable. I don't think it's only about measurement, although that is part of it. There is no scientific hypothesis that I am aware of for how a system that transmits 1s and 0s that is identical to another system that transmits exactly the same 1 and 0s, could sound different. If it works then it's the same, scientifically speaking and any difference must be down to other factors and nothing to do with the cable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 12:53:45 GMT
Science is constantly disproving itself and rejecting old "proofs" for new ones. Science is far more subjective than most people realise. It depends on how you look at it. Science is constantly improving, but it is the only method I am aware of for coming up with reliable universal laws that are true everywhere and at all times. Science is not subjective, by definition the scientific method is objective. Do you have a good example of a recent scientific theory that was previously generally accepted and has been disproved? |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 18, 2014 13:07:52 GMT
Science is constantly disproving itself and rejecting old "proofs" for new ones. Science is far more subjective than most people realise. It depends on how you look at it. Science is constantly improving, but it is the only method I am aware of for coming up with reliable universal laws that are true everywhere and at all times. Science is not subjective, by definition the scientific method is objective. Do you have a good example of a recent scientific theory that was previously generally accepted and has been disproved? It depends what you are counting as recent, but we are unlikely to have arrived at absolute knowledge just coincidentally when we are spending a brief time on the planet in this lifetime. Newton's theory of gravity being corrected by Einsteins relativity would be the stand-out candidate for progress - and the search for the Higgs Bosun to unify two conflicting physics models of the world would be another. String theory? (in all its variants) |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 18, 2014 13:08:55 GMT
According the new scientist - the speed of light may not be universal law and is under challenge .
Also - scientific theories are necessarily subjective because they rely on language to explain themselves .We attempt to obtain explanatory purchase on reality through language , it does not mean our language 100% coincides with a reality that can not be known outside of our language [ this is the hermetic circle ] Science uses repetition and prediction to give its knowledge a special status , it does not mean that knowledge is true or that they apply at all time forever . Karl Popper said the best science could hope for is that its knowledge remains to falsified .
This is largely irrelevant to practical science cause all it cares about is prediction and repetition , it really don't care if its explanation of natural phenomena are 100% all there is to that phenomena for all time or if they true - truth is practically defined and if it did , it would be bolloxed cause it could never prove it in any event
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 18, 2014 13:09:34 GMT
self censorship due to repetition  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 13:43:18 GMT
According the new scientist - the speed of light may not be universal law and is under challenge . Also - scientific theories are necessarily subjective because they rely on language to explain themselves .We attempt to obtain explanatory purchase on reality through language , it does not mean our language 100% coincides with a reality than can not be known outside of our language [ this is the hermetic circle ] Science uses repetition and prediction to give its knowledge a special status , it does not mean that knowledge is true or that they apply at all time forever . Karl Popper said the best science could hope for is that its knowledge remains to falsified . This is largely irrelevant to practical science cause all it cares about is prediction and repetition , it really don't care if its explanation of natural phenomena are 100% all there is to that phenomena for all time or if they true - truth is practically defined and if it did , it would be bolloxed cause it could never prove it in any event I accept that our understanding is to some extent subjective - to the extent that it relies on language. I'm a fan of Wittgenstein, so would accept that we can never really know reality, and language is fundamental to our knowledge. However, for the purpose of the discussion about cables, the scientific method is much more objective process than the "supernatural" method which is subjective and relies on personal revelation for the little evidence it can muster. I seem to remember some scientists claiming that they had proved that the speed of light wasn't a constant some time ago, it turned out to be badly calibrated equipment causing the problem. I'll have a look for the New Scientist article. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 18, 2014 13:50:28 GMT
okay I will give you that , that is a far more nuanced position that your initial post .
The first part of the scientific method is observation of phenomena . It could be argued , the cable debate is stalled at the first step because there isn't the money or inclination to take it beyond this .
But a significant number of people have independently reported observable [ hearable ] differences .
|
|
