Audiophoolery?

[hopeless]

The author never stopped to think that many products are designed to sound "different." Be it cables, amplifiers, speakers, or what have you. Different sells.

He is correct that there is a lot of BS in this business, but there are some fundamental truths as well that he is overlooking in his efforts to pontificate.

I built a different power cord for my Arcam CD player many years ago. I used a piece of 14 guage extension cord, an AC plug I had laying around, and bought an IEC connector. This "massive" investment worked for me. I had my now ex wife and a friend of mine listen to see if they heard a difference. Both claimed they did, and they didn't know which was in. I was driven to spend $20 or so into new power cords for my IEC equipped stuff. He can call me "stupid", but I've got power cables custom cut for my rack which gives me a much cleaner wire mess. That was one of my primary goals in doing so.

I've spent a lot of time in this industry, now "retired", but I would never make huge blanket statements like that. I've found stupid things that worked. Sometimes they didn't make a lot of sense, like a power cord, but I heard the $7 difference in mine, and my neater rack was a bonus,

 

[robgmn]

I'm not a golden ear (hell, two head surgeries for a tumor took away most of my hearing in one ear), but here's my point of logic that hasn't been refuted yet:
If you can hear a difference between 2 or more xxxx's (cables, power cords, speaker cable supports, Tice clocks, etc.), it means all except one (or possibly ALL of them) are not RIGHT.
If they WERE "right" they would all sound the same.
The raison d'etre of all these items is to deliver the sound to you exactly as the original was heard.
If there is a difference in sound between any two, then one is adding or detracting from what SHOULD be heard, and is therefore WRONG (and both may be found wrong with direct comparison to the original signal).

Ergo, the cable mfgr. who has a good/better/best lineup of cables is basically saying that the good or better cables are crap (defective) because the best cables are the ones that deliver the most uncolored signal.

Does this mean I don't believe tweaks can improve sound quality?
No, it means that those tweaks would have to correct a fault in the signal delivery.
If your new power cord makes your system sound better, then the old one was defective in some way (not delivering the current that it should, to put it simply).
The same goes for your speaker cables (they should deliver 100% of the signal from the amp to the speaker, no more and no less otherwise they are colouring the signal).

Sorry, but audio IS science, not magic. Everything about it can be measured in some way. If you add crystal cable supports that sound 100% better to you than your cocobolo supports, but there is absolutely NO measurable difference in the signal, then the difference is in your mind, NOT in the sound.
It's been PROVEN time and again in double-blind testing.
It's science.

Some people will spend $500 on a power cable for their amp made of exotic materials, and totally disregard the fact that their house wiring from breaker to outlet is no different than anyone else's.
The most accurate power cord they could have would be 3 pieces of solid-core wire the same gauge (or thicker) than the wiring in the wall connected TO the wiring in the wall and directly to the amp. Total cost: $3.
It's science.

Tell me that one USB cable is more accurate than another, and I'll tell you one is defective. Either the cable delivers the exact code that was put into it, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it's going in the garbage.
It's science.

(I can' say IMHO here, because science doesn't allow for opinions, only facts).

 

[Dukiedook]

I guess I would have to try it before I pooped all over it but I am not gonna pay $300 to try.

 

[Bigerik]

I'm not a golden ear (hell, two head surgeries for a tumor took away most of my hearing in one ear), but here's my point of logic that hasn't been refuted yet:
If you can hear a difference between 2 or more xxxx's (cables, power cords, speaker cable supports, Tice clocks, etc.), it means all except one (or possibly ALL of them) are not RIGHT.
If they WERE "right" they would all sound the same.
The raison d'etre of all these items is to deliver the sound to you exactly as the original was heard.
If there is a difference in sound between any two, then one is adding or detracting from what SHOULD be heard, and is therefore WRONG (and both may be found wrong with direct comparison to the original signal).

Ergo, the cable mfgr. who has a good/better/best lineup of cables is basically saying that the good or better cables are crap (defective) because the best cables are the ones that deliver the most uncolored signal.

Does this mean I don't believe tweaks can improve sound quality?
No, it means that those tweaks would have to correct a fault in the signal delivery.
If your new power cord makes your system sound better, then the old one was defective in some way (not delivering the current that it should, to put it simply).
The same goes for your speaker cables (they should deliver 100% of the signal from the amp to the speaker, no more and no less otherwise they are colouring the signal).

Sorry, but audio IS science, not magic. Everything about it can be measured in some way. If you add crystal cable supports that sound 100% better to you than your cocobolo supports, but there is absolutely NO measurable difference in the signal, then the difference is in your mind, NOT in the sound.
It's been PROVEN time and again in double-blind testing.
It's science.

Some people will spend $500 on a power cable for their amp made of exotic materials, and totally disregard the fact that their house wiring from breaker to outlet is no different than anyone else's.
The most accurate power cord they could have would be 3 pieces of solid-core wire the same gauge (or thicker) than the wiring in the wall connected TO the wiring in the wall and directly to the amp. Total cost: $3.
It's science.

Tell me that one USB cable is more accurate than another, and I'll tell you one is defective. Either the cable delivers the exact code that was put into it, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it's going in the garbage.
It's science.

(I can' say IMHO here, because science doesn't allow for opinions, only facts).

So, by your own admission you can't hear well anymore, so you won't believe others hear things that you don't?

Science is not the end of learning. It is the beginning. People who claim that science has all the answers have no understanding of science. They confuse the current understanding in science on a subject with an absolute truth.

But the point of these posts is never science anyway. It is always just to have a way to mock something that the poster chooses not to believe in. All attitude and no audio.

 

[Freezer7Pro]

Science is not the end of learning. It is the beginning. People who claim that science has all the answers have no understanding of science. They confuse the current understanding in science on a subject with an absolute truth.

But the point of these posts is never science anyway. It is always just to have a way to mock something that the poster chooses not to believe in. All attitude and no audio.

I must contest this.

Science is not the end of learning. That is a very correct statement, as science is nothing but learning. As such, science cannot produce absolute truths. Such claims are reserved for religion.

What science can produce, however, is statistically defensible hypotheses that can survive the scrutiny of its peers. Audio spectrum waveform analysis is such a hypothesis, de-magnetising records is not. In order for the latter to escape its religious label, it must provide some form of evidence of the former being insufficient or incorrect. It (as well as all other forms of "snake oil") has not done this, and I dare say that they never will.

Pleading to a lack of personal experience has no merit in scientific circles, as one of the greatest merits of this age of written text and the scientific method is that things can be understood by reading the works of those before us, without experiencing them first-hand. This principle is one of the base pillars of our modern, first-world society.

 

[Brett a]

I'm not a golden ear (hell, two head surgeries for a tumor took away most of my hearing in one ear), but here's my point of logic that hasn't been refuted yet:
If you can hear a difference between 2 or more xxxx's (cables, power cords, speaker cable supports, Tice clocks, etc.), it means all except one (or possibly ALL of them) are not RIGHT.
If they WERE "right" they would all sound the same.
The raison d'etre of all these items is to deliver the sound to you exactly as the original was heard.
If there is a difference in sound between any two, then one is adding or detracting from what SHOULD be heard, and is therefore WRONG (and both may be found wrong with direct comparison to the original signal).

Ergo, the cable mfgr. who has a good/better/best lineup of cables is basically saying that the good or better cables are crap (defective) because the best cables are the ones that deliver the most uncolored signal.

Does this mean I don't believe tweaks can improve sound quality?
No, it means that those tweaks would have to correct a fault in the signal delivery.
If your new power cord makes your system sound better, then the old one was defective in some way (not delivering the current that it should, to put it simply).
The same goes for your speaker cables (they should deliver 100% of the signal from the amp to the speaker, no more and no less otherwise they are colouring the signal).

Sorry, but audio IS science, not magic. Everything about it can be measured in some way. If you add crystal cable supports that sound 100% better to you than your cocobolo supports, but there is absolutely NO measurable difference in the signal, then the difference is in your mind, NOT in the sound.
It's been PROVEN time and again in double-blind testing.
It's science.

Some people will spend $500 on a power cable for their amp made of exotic materials, and totally disregard the fact that their house wiring from breaker to outlet is no different than anyone else's.
The most accurate power cord they could have would be 3 pieces of solid-core wire the same gauge (or thicker) than the wiring in the wall connected TO the wiring in the wall and directly to the amp. Total cost: $3.
It's science.

Tell me that one USB cable is more accurate than another, and I'll tell you one is defective. Either the cable delivers the exact code that was put into it, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it's going in the garbage.
It's science.

(I can' say IMHO here, because science doesn't allow for opinions, only facts).

Welcome to AudioKarma. That's quite a first post.

Thanks for sharing your opinion that science sufficiently proves the points you make. IMO, there is no test equipment sensitive enough to catch the subtle differences people do hear in different components. (and there is a lot of space between science and magic BTW; on the other hand, science proves some pretty magical phenomena if you ask me) But I get it; you have a different opinion; If I understand you correctly, you believe science has sufficiently proven that all equipment operating at a certain basic set of specs is transparent. I think you're wrong; everything the signal passes through changes the signal in some way and there is no possible way to achieve absolute transparency. It's a theory I know. And until we get more sensitive test equipment, it shall remain so. As for DBTs and ABx-ing? parlor tricks. Nearly useless exercises in obfuscation.

I appreciate what the scientific community provides and proves. I know we would have none of this equipment if it were not for EE'ing (to say the least). But it's possible to keep an open mind without one's brains falling out.

I think such absolute belief in science in these matters qualifies as "scientism". (But that's just my opinion)

Scientism

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

 

[musichal]

I've never been able to hear a difference in speaker cable so I don't buy expensive speaker cable - I remain a speaker cable skeptic, and I had the chance to try out various cables with very high-end systems which sounded truly awesome. For those who hear a difference, then more expensive cable is worth their money, but obviously not mine.

I have, however, heard what are to me undeniable differences in pre-amps, amps and receivers, which I have seen some people deny in these forums. I tend to think of them as the Julian Hirsch crowd. Makes me think they should get out more; guess the speaker cable cogniscenti could say the same of me. So electronics are worth my money, but not so much theirs. (I'm still kicking myself for missing out on an Audio Research SP-7 pre-amp yesterday on ebay - even had spousal approval, but I backed out at the last moment.)

Obviously, virtually all of us hear differences with TTs, carts, arms, tape machines, and speakers, but we often disagree in our preferences of those. I must admit, however, that I don't hear anything but minor differences in CD players (I use Toslink to digital pre-amp, and don't buy gpx), so you won't see me pony up much for one.

So if someone wants to spend their money on something I find dubious, I don't tend to criticize. You pays your money and you makes your choices, just like I pay and make mine. If you think it works, then it does, even if it may be no more than the placebo effect - placebos can be highly effective. Or, perhaps they hear something I don't...naah.

 

[Freezer7Pro]

Welcome to AudioKarma. That's quite a first post.

Thanks for sharing your opinion that science sufficiently proves the points you make. IMO, there is no test equipment sensitive enough to catch the subtle differences people do hear in different components. [ . . . ]

My . . . opinion, is that the humble sound card in my computer is able to detect and present differences in a signal that no human ear in the world ever could, and it is a claim that I'll gladly prove.

But I get it; you have a different opinion; If I understand you correctly, you believe science has sufficiently proven that all equipment operating at a certain basic set of specs is transparent. I think you're wrong; everything the signal passes through changes the signal in some way and there is no possible way to achieve absolute transparency.

Opinions. There are informed and uninformed ones. Claiming that something is merely your opinion is not a free pass out of scrutiny in an open forum. Especially not when that opinion is presented in a manner contesting another . . . opinion. When opinion is placed against opinion, only the reasoning behind the opinions matter, not the opinions themselves. Else there would be no point in presenting something under the name of opinion. In such a case, a well-informed opinion simply bears considerably more weight than an ill-informed one.

Furthermore, I think you're confusing audible "transparency" with measurable such. Indeed, no piece of equipment is 100% accurate. Such a device could not exist. However, good equipment will be so accurate that the only way to detect its irregularities is by (you guessed it!) measuring it.

As for DBTs and ABx-ing? parlor tricks. Nearly useless exercises in obfuscation.

What? Why? It's hard not to make derogatory analogies when presented with opinions such as that.

I'm sorry to make such a "venomous" post on this friendly site, but I have a hard time ignoring things such as these.

 

[robgmn]

Though I tried to be clear, I think some may have misunderstood "Does this mean I don't believe tweaks can improve sound quality? No, it means that those tweaks would have to correct a fault in the signal delivery."

I DO believe different components SOUND different.
That is undeniable fact.

What I DON'T believe is that two different components that deliver IDENTICAL signals sound different.
THAT would be magic.

Yes, there is the psychoacoustic element that cannot be measured, but honestly, THAT is in the mind.

If your system sounds better to you because the sun went down and your listening room is now dark, or because you put on a grey shirt instead of a black one (all other factors of the shirt being identical), then by all means it sounds better to YOU.
That is psychoacoustics.
(BTW I prefer to listen "critically" in the dark or with my eyes closed because it removes distraction and lets me focus on the sound. This is a function of my MIND, NOT of the lightwave propagation in the room affecting the audio signal).

If you wish to make the claim that the presence of light waves or the color of your shirt is coloring the sound that you HEAR, or that one USB cable sounds better than another when they both deliver IDENTICAL bitstreams to the DAC would be entering the realm of magic (much like the claim that putting a 2" rare earth magnet on your automobile gas line is gong to realign the molecules in your fuel and double your gas mileage).

Yes, I believe there are absolutes. Science HAS proven that (the computer you're viewing this with is proof).
As mentioned, we have the ability to measure things FAR beyond the ability of our own senses.

If you can PROVE that a $500 amplifier power cable will provide "better" electricity to the amp than 3 lengths of solid core 10 gauge (since it will be improving on MANY miles of transmission line and dozens of feet of standard wiring in your house), then I will accept it.
Until it is measurably PROVEN, it is psychoacoustics (a placebo effect, if you will, which HAS been proven as fact).
Remember, Bob Carver PROVED to many "Golden Ears" that he could make an inexpensive SS amp sound just as good as a tens-of-thousands of dollars tube amp.
People would still choose the expensive amp because of the cache.

As for double-blind testing being obfuscation? ABSOLUTELY!
It removes the pyschoacoustic element by not allowing your MIND to color your judgement with preconceived notions of what you THINK you should be hearing.

Imagine if the best sounding speaker in the world could be (here's the magic part) made to appear as a speaker you KNOW sounds terrible (lots of option there).
Now side-by-side it with a magnificent-looking speaker that has excellent sound.
How many people would choose the best looking speaker as the best sounding one?
The majority (it's been proven).

Double-blind tests OBFUSCATE the source of the sound, forcing you to judge the SOUND, not the SOURCE of the sound.
That's why they work.

'Ever hear of the Mcgurk effect?
Here's a neat video clip that demonstrates how a visual input can affect our perception of sounds.
'And this is just a visual input. Imagine what your MIND can add to your perception. If you BELIEVE that alarm clock is going to make your system sound better, then it WILL sound better. To you. I always think my system sounds better after I make ANY changes, including dusting. I KNOW it sounds better because I'm appreciating the effort I put into it before sitting down to listen.
I also KNOW that a PB&J sandwich tastes better when made by someone else and handed to me than when I make it myself (a reverse correlation there):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

 

[Tom Brennan]

Claiming that something is merely your opinion is not a free pass out of scrutiny in an open forum. Especially not when that opinion is presented in a manner contesting another . . . opinion. When opinion is placed against opinion, only the reasoning behind the opinions matter, not the opinions themselves. Else there would be no point in presenting something under the name of opinion. In such a case, a well-informed opinion simply bears considerably more weight than an ill-informed one.

Indeed.

 

[JohnVF]

And yet that opinion, is backed up by no more solid evidence than the first opinion. But it is considered to be logical because the person writing it, holds the opinion which they think is right.

I have an idea: listen to your stereo as if it were part of a hobby and not the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[AudioSoul]

The auther of this article is just a scientist that has his head up his ass and can't think out of the box

 

[Brett a]

Claiming that something is merely your opinion is not a free pass out of scrutiny in an open forum.

I'm not looking for, or expecting, any such thing. Scrutinize away. But it will be very one-sided as you will no doubt offer up various types of proof to dismiss my position and I have none with which to support mine. I have no need or interest in that kind of back-and-forth because we all know where it goes (nowhere)

I need the kind of proof you rely on about as much as I need someone telling me what I am and am not hearing.

So have fun. (really)

:yes:

:thmbsp:

I have an idea: listen to your stereo as if it were part of a hobby and not the Spanish Inquisition.

Huh,...I really wasn't expecting that.

 

[Mister Pig]

Though I tried to be clear, I think some may have misunderstood "Does this mean I don't believe tweaks can improve sound quality? No, it means that those tweaks would have to correct a fault in the signal delivery."

I DO believe different components SOUND different.
That is undeniable fact.

What I DON'T believe is that two different components that deliver IDENTICAL signals sound different.
THAT would be magic.

Yes, there is the psychoacoustic element that cannot be measured, but honestly, THAT is in the mind.

If your system sounds better to you because the sun went down and your listening room is now dark, or because you put on a grey shirt instead of a black one (all other factors of the shirt being identical), then by all means it sounds better to YOU.
That is psychoacoustics.
(BTW I prefer to listen "critically" in the dark or with my eyes closed because it removes distraction and lets me focus on the sound. This is a function of my MIND, NOT of the lightwave propagation in the room affecting the audio signal).

If you wish to make the claim that the presence of light waves or the color of your shirt is coloring the sound that you HEAR, or that one USB cable sounds better than another when they both deliver IDENTICAL bitstreams to the DAC would be entering the realm of magic (much like the claim that putting a 2" rare earth magnet on your automobile gas line is gong to realign the molecules in your fuel and double your gas mileage).

Yes, I believe there are absolutes. Science HAS proven that (the computer you're viewing this with is proof).
As mentioned, we have the ability to measure things FAR beyond the ability of our own senses.

If you can PROVE that a $500 amplifier power cable will provide "better" electricity to the amp than 3 lengths of solid core 10 gauge (since it will be improving on MANY miles of transmission line and dozens of feet of standard wiring in your house), then I will accept it.
Until it is measurably PROVEN, it is psychoacoustics (a placebo effect, if you will, which HAS been proven as fact).
Remember, Bob Carver PROVED to many "Golden Ears" that he could make an inexpensive SS amp sound just as good as a tens-of-thousands of dollars tube amp.
People would still choose the expensive amp because of the cache.

As for double-blind testing being obfuscation? ABSOLUTELY!
It removes the pyschoacoustic element by not allowing your MIND to color your judgement with preconceived notions of what you THINK you should be hearing.

Imagine if the best sounding speaker in the world could be (here's the magic part) made to appear as a speaker you KNOW sounds terrible (lots of option there).
Now side-by-side it with a magnificent-looking speaker that has excellent sound.
How many people would choose the best looking speaker as the best sounding one?
The majority (it's been proven).

Double-blind tests OBFUSCATE the source of the sound, forcing you to judge the SOUND, not the SOURCE of the sound.
That's why they work.

'Ever hear of the Mcgurk effect?
Here's a neat video clip that demonstrates how a visual input can affect our perception of sounds.
'And this is just a visual input. Imagine what your MIND can add to your perception. If you BELIEVE that alarm clock is going to make your system sound better, then it WILL sound better. To you. I always think my system sounds better after I make ANY changes, including dusting. I KNOW it sounds better because I'm appreciating the effort I put into it before sitting down to listen.
I also KNOW that a PB&J sandwich tastes better when made by someone else and handed to me than when I make it myself (a reverse correlation there):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

A question if you don't mind. I ask this to people who are advocates of DBT testing, it is interesting to know the results. Did you use DBT testing to buy every component in your audio system? Is this a philosophy you actively practice? If so, can you tell us how you accomplished this, and to what means you chose your perspective candidates. Also how did you know you made the best purchase? What was your control or reference component?

I have yet to meet an advocate of DBT testing who actually practices it, you would be the first. Hope this is the case.

Another point about DBT discussions are how good is the control system? How non intrusive to the sound that the switching gear is. High quality switching systems are quite expensive, and it is a serious impediment to performing a proper DBT test. For the record, I believe the test does have value, but in my mind it is not the end all to an evaluation of audio gear.

Now you do a fine job listing all the tom foolery associated with subjective audio, even some that are not. Such as rare earth magnets and gas mileage. Lets include the entire vitamin nutritional supplement scam run by hair dressers. Never mind that there is legitimate nutritionists out there.

Anyways, how about taking a skeptical look at the measurement side of audio as well? If hitting appropriate level of specifications are all that matters than audio sound should never have changed since the 1960's and the introduction of the transistor. Distortion levels were driven remarkably low even then, not to mention the THD wars conducted by the big Japanese manufacturers. Yet audio people found equipment built on these principals to often be poor conveyors of music. The failures of specification driven audio led to the rise of subjectivism and the small boutique audio companies....that don't strictly practice audio objectivism. But these are still designers and educated people, and they work within the laws of science and electrical engineering. One cannot deny the importance of science and electrical theory when it comes to designing audio gear.

As far as the effects of the placebo effect, and the effects of perception and expectation in regards to audio equipment performance. Well once a person is made aware of these tendencies, a rational and discerning person can actively counter them. Plenty of vintage people on AK walk into audio stores and say that the sound they hear is no better than their vintage gear. So obviously the beauty and newness of gear has no influence on their auditory evaluation. While the events you describe may very well hold true for the common person who has limited interest in this hobby, I would contend that would not be the case for those who are passionate about it. Although we certainly do appreciate what we see and feel.

But once again, can you please describe the DBT methodology you used to select your system?

Regards
Mister Pig

BTW as I recall the written documentation of the scientific method was not intended to be used as a way to show others what they have not directly experienced.But rather it gives a detailed set of instructions on how to set up and run the same experiment and verify the results. If consistent results can be achieved over a given length of time, the hypothesis is held to be valid. Which does not make it a law, but just a valid hypothesis.

 

[whoaru99]

The motor in the Chevy Chevette is just as good as the motor in the Chevy Corvette. Do you really believe that Chevy would use an inferior motor?

Illogical counter....unless I misconstrue your point.

GM is smart enough to develop a great engine and smart enough to develop a great chassis to make a great package, referring to the Corvette, of course.

Yet we are to assume audio greats like McIntosh, Levinson, et al. are too dumb to make the proper pairing? In crude analogy, shipping the Corvette chassis with a Chevette engine? Or, probably more analagous, sell you a Corvette shod with Chevette tires?

 

[Bigerik]

Do people never get tired of telling others what they can and cannot hear? Do you really have to tell someone they can't be enjoying their stereo in the way they are because no scientist had proven it to your satisfaction? Are people's lives really do shallow that they have to get on a forum dedicated to audio just to tell other audio fans that the others are imagining the differences?

 

[Freezer7Pro]

I'm not looking for, or expecting, any such thing. Scrutinize away. But it will be very one-sided as you will no doubt offer up various types of proof to dismiss my position and I have none with which to support mine. I have no need or interest in that kind of back-and-forth because we all know where it goes (nowhere)

I need the kind of proof you rely on about as much as I need someone telling me what I am and am not hearing.

So have fun. (really)

:yes:

:thmbsp:

Your saying this after scrutinising Robgmn's first post in such a condescending manner is, at best, insulting to all parties involved.

This will indeed go nowhere. Have a good day.

Do people never get tired of telling others what they can and cannot hear? Do you really have to tell someone they can't be enjoying their stereo in the way they are because no scientist had proven it to your satisfaction? Are people's lives really do shallow that they have to get on a forum dedicated to audio just to tell other audio fans that the others are imagining the differences?

While I realise that these are rhetorical questions, I'll still take the opportunity to present another view, since I'm quite certain that I'm a part of the group you're referring to.

I don't care about how you, Brett or anybody else choose to enjoy their stereo. That is absolutely none of my business, and I want to make that very clear.

However, when someone enters an open forum, the Internet in particular, they should not expect their personal opinion to carry the same weight as the decades of peer-reviewed, scientific research that it opposes. If you choose to enter such a forum and voice such an opinion, you shouldn't be surprised when someone has a problem with it and calls you out on it. That's free speech in action.

That is, however, not what causes the "hostile" situations. If the holder of the opinion was to acknowledge it as a mere opinion, nobody would think anything more of it.

That rarely happens. It is when the holder of the opinion then tries to elevate his opinion to the same level of credibility as the science that it opposes, that sparks start to fly. What was a harmless opinion has now been turned into an unprovable fact, and the discussion is bound to swirl down the drain and into the sewers of theological Internet debates.

 

[Brett a]

Your saying this after scrutinising Robgmn's first post in such a condescending manner is, at best, insulting to all parties involved.

This will indeed go nowhere. Have a good day.

I thought what I was doing was sharing my differing opinion. I guess that does quality as scrutiny by the dictionary definition of the word.

I'm sorry you feel condescended to; that wasn't my intent. In fact, it was the feeling of being condescended to by people telling me what I am and am not hearing that I was reacting/responding to. Doesn't feel too good, does it?

As far as having a good day; so far so good. It's sunny, mid 50's here in New England. A beautiful early spring day. I'm going out to wash the car. And listen to The Birthday Party while doing it. I hope you have a good day too.

:thmbsp:

 

[Tom Brennan]

The auther of this article is just a scientist that has his head up his ass and can't think out of the box

Two cliches in one sentence; not much of an argument though.

 

[ehoove]

I have an idea: listen to your stereo as if it were part of a hobby and not the Spanish Inquisition.

Best post of the thread, This is not a life and death situation here, just the pursuit of a hobby, and hopefully the freedom to pursue it as you wish without undue scrutiny.

Regards,
Jim