Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners A MUST READ Personal STORY: Newbies Must Know

Hmmm....I'm beginning to believe there's more than just one sleep deprived person around here...

And John....now you're just trying to scare me!!!!

Adding more fuel to the fire.

/pours lighter fluid on flames...

Monkeys are very cool, but not as cool as chimps. (I needed that segue to relay a story my dad once told me.)

My dad was at a zoo once and was watching some chimps at mealtime. One chimp was eating a peach. When he got to the pit, he held it up and looked at it for a moment, and then bent over and inserted it partway into his anus. With a satisfied look on his face, he then removed it put it into his mouth and ate it.

He was just checking to make sure it would fit on the way out.

But did the stinky fingerered chimp proclaim himself a scientist?

I doubt he first formed a hypothesis before performing that experiment.

I've figured you out, 2x6. You hold that being a scientist is an unattainable ideal. Your god is Scientist. Therefore, none of us puny mortals could possibly be a scientist, know anything scientific, understand the scientific method, propose testing methodologies, take classes, hold degrees, or use logical reasoning, since we are not divine.

It all makes sense now.

Oh yeah, and implying that people who say that they are scientists are "stinky apes" would, in fact, qualify as an insult. As would calling them the equivalent of cowardly fish.

I like the story about the chimp that knew sign language. Told her trainer that she would be a good girl. He went into the cage and she bit off his knee cap. Indicates the level of intelligence of the chimp - not that she knew sign language but that she could lie as well as a human.

In reply to:

---

But did the stinky fingerered chimp proclaim himself a scientist?

---

Nope, not a scientist, but a Californian lawyer.

No, KC, doesn't resonate with me. I think all the great technological accomplishments follow an increasingly deep understanding of nature. I don't think science is static and self proclaimed scientists like Chess who claim to know it all, who hold their opinions out as fact, miss the point - our understanding of nature, its structure, our ability to mathematically model processes great and small, is evolving and at least in part, tentative. The relationship between theory and observation - experimentation, is dynamic and each colors the way we see the other.I think for the most part, the methodology used by 'scientists' to formulate their audio theories is simplistic.

Now maybe there is an observable set of phenomena associated with 'breaking in' components, maybe there isn't. Same for use of different cables, sonic character of solid state amps. I can hear the difference between different amps, but have not subjected that ability to rigorous double blind testing.

My methodology is simple. I start with a system, in a room, which altogether have a sonic quality I'm familiar with. I then swap out one component at a time, listen to music I'm familiar with and determine whether there is a discernable difference. If there is, I then place a purely subjective value on the difference - better, worse, just different.

Now, I don't start threads on this subject. Scientific Mullahs who are in possession of the scientific truth, whose theories dictate that I don't really hear differences I hear, who, like Chess, trumpets that his opinions are 'facts,' well, that will provoke the occasional response.

KC, I trust the scientific method when applied intelligently and honestly, but I haven't heard the self proclaimed scientist say that he has conducted any experiment whatsoever.

So, chess, put down the stinky peach pit and get to work! Tell us about what you've heard not what your theories dictate we should or should not be hearing.