|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
chez
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 35935
Location: The Hive of the Uberbee, Quantock Hills, Somerset
|
|
|
|
 |
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46192
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46192
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
paul1963
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46192
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
paul1963
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 6612
Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
paul1963
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:18 pm Post subject: |
 
|
| 12Bore wrote: |
| eg. I sell audio cables, some cost £5 some cost £1000+, in some circles this is known as "foo". It may be that a metallurgist can prove scientifically that they all measure/test the same, but if it satisfies the customer and leaves them happy who is to say that all copper sounds the same? |
Rather depends on what kind of audio cables I think...
But take that example; suppose someone was to ask about, say for example, HDMI cables to connect a bad telly to a rubbish DVD player. They get an answer that they should buy a special cable thats £50 per metre. Its perfectly fair that others might (a) suggest that in that scenario such expenditure on cables won't help, and (b) except for long distances it probably makes no difference for HDMI, or (c) actually the build quality of some of the really cheap cables is ridiculous, so just avoid those and you'll not go TOO far wrong.
Does it satisfy the customer? Maybe, not my business to say. But if the topic is open for discussion should we shy away from voicing defensible opinions? |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46192
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
| paul1963 wrote: |
| dpack wrote: |
| paul1963 wrote: |
| dpack wrote: |
| paul1963 wrote: |
| T.G wrote: |
| Slim wrote: |
| I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'. |
That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.
More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.
They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner. |
Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either...... |
scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further |
That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.
Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results. |
i think we mean the same thing here |
Actually I think we probably do 
Too busy watching the Dser's scrapping on the other threads  |
ah good
the method is perfect ,the best truth as far as we can work out will change as we learn more |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46192
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
paul1963
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 11 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
| dpack wrote: |
| paul1963 wrote: |
| dpack wrote: |
| paul1963 wrote: |
| dpack wrote: |
| paul1963 wrote: |
| T.G wrote: |
| Slim wrote: |
| I think the trick lies in a balance of 'reason' respecting anecdotes and experiences from 'faith' and 'faith' respecting inquiry and critique by means of 'reason'. |
That's very true and I for one wasn't meaning to imply no counter comments should be made.
More that unless people feel able to speak freely without open scorn these debates/discussions never get off the marks and jumping to conclusions that the person posting might believe whole heartedly in what they are asking or posting about is not helpful.
They may simply be exploring their own knowledge amongst people who they regarded as able to give a reasoned and balance differing perspective AND are willing to read the differing scientific point of view if put in a polite manner. |
Tis all true and let us not forget the science is not infallible either...... |
scientific method is infallible but knowledge expands and leads to greater understanding when the subject is studied further |
That I'm afraid Dpack simply isn't true, there have been numerous cases of science being wrong, an example; The Piltdown Man hoax, thoroughly endorsed by scientists, er no. Thoroughly endorse by some of those who examined the remains and they shouted ludest and it got accepted as science fact for a while. We, of course, now know it was a hoax and if it happened today radio carbon dating would clear it up within a week.
Science operates within defined principles, its main asset being that it continually attempts to disprove itself, but it really is only as good as the peeps who interpret the results. |
i think we mean the same thing here |
Actually I think we probably do
Too busy watching the Dser's scrapping on the other threads |
ah good
the method is perfect ,the best truth as far as we can work out will change as we learn more |
It will. It seems bizarre by today's rationale that the "science" of medieval times was defined by the Bible, and yet modern archaeology now shows some Biblical events to have a possible basis in history. |
|
|
|
|
vegplot
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46192
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
paul1963
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 2161
Location: No longer active on the forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts