advertisement


Yiiiiiihaaa!!! The 20'000 UKP power cable is here!

Isn't this the same as the creationist vs. evolution debate? To the creationists, the science side comes across as high-handed, patronising and arrogant because there is no need to go over old ground to try to convince people to dumb to go look for themselves. Meanwhile, the nice creationist preacher guy comforts them by saying they aren't stupid and the reason why the 'evolutionists' don't go over the same arguments time and time again is because they have something to hide.

In the cable debate, being told time and again that you are an idiot for thinking these things make a difference conflicts with the ad hoc demonstrations cable guys perform to make people part with their money. Faced with "I've heard it", "you didn't because you couldn't" is a very weak argument for most people. It's how homeopaths, herbalists, nutritionists, face cream purveyors and religious proselytisers continue to survive and even thrive in a seemingly rational world. Because the world only seems rational and we are all half a day away from turning all Lord of the Flies.

Audio sales pitches and demonstrations have more in common with PT Barnum than they do with real science. PT Barnum died very, very rich.

If you want a more rational audio world, you have to think more like PT Barnum and less like Richard Dawkins. Because that's precisely what the other side does. If you can't, or you won't, don't be surprised if the world gets filled with £20,000 mains leads.
 
aquapiranha said:
This is the same as saying that ghosts exist because no one has yet proved that they don't.
The same could be said of crystal healing, aliens, ley lines, witchcraft, shamanism and other number of hocus pocus offerings.
Click to expand...

I'm not going there


aquapiranha said:
Your argument is moot, it is YOU who must prove that your beliefs are correct, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. in any reasoned argument, BOTH sides should provide evidence to support their assertions, otherwise that is all they are....assertions.

aquapiranha said:
Like the religious you expect us to think like you simply because you say it is so.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha Ha ! And, strangely enough, this is the exact same tack taken by cable sceptics in any cable discussion....
 
Emperor,

Isn't this the same as the creationist vs. evolution debate? To the creationists, the science side comes across as high-handed, patronising and arrogant because there is no need to go over old ground to try to convince people to dumb to go look for themselves. Meanwhile, the nice creationist preacher guy comforts them by saying they aren't stupid and the reason why the 'evolutionists' don't go over the same arguments time and time again is because they have something to hide.
Click to expand...
An odd analogy, given that creationists try to censor biology textbooks and pressure school boards into incorporating creationism in biology curriculum, while evolutionists generally stay well away from churches.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Emperor,


An odd analogy, given that creationists try to censor biology textbooks and pressure school boards into incorporating creationism in biology curriculum, while evolutionists generally stay well away from churches.

Joe
Click to expand...

No, it fits perfectly. Not necessarily here, where cable scepticism is encouraged. Try Cable Asylum on Audio Asylum and see what the reception is to even the remotest questioning of cable dogma. I would imagine the pressure to continue to support cables is just as strong with dealers and magazines. No dealer is going to play down the influence of cables (even if they don't believe) simply because they don't want to lose sales. No magazine is going to do the same because they don't want to lose advertising revenue. So, the cable purveyors get to dictate the shape of the business just as much as creationists get to dictate the content of schoolbooks.

I'm sure most who find expensive cables absurd simply don't buy expensive cables, but it's on forums like this where the clashes between the believers and the apostates take place. Same with creationist vs. science debates... they happen online now.
 
wwelly said:
I'm not going there




That is incorrect. in any reasoned argument, BOTH sides should provide evidence to support their assertions, otherwise that is all they are....assertions.



Ha Ha Ha ! And, strangely enough, this is the exact same tack taken by cable sceptics in any cable discussion....
Click to expand...

But that is the point. It is not a reasoned argument. The subjectivist view is not backed by any evidence other than blind faith.

Chris
 
This is the same as saying that ghosts exist because no one has yet proved that they don't. The same could be said of crystal healing, aliens, ley lines, witchcraft, shamanism and other number of hocus pocus offerings. Your argument is moot, it is YOU who must prove that your beliefs are correct, not the other way around. This is the one part of the whole ridiculous subjective viewpoint which simply does not hold water. Like the religious you expect us to think like you simply because you say it is so.
Click to expand...

What is the basis for the above statement? Is there a legal basis if you are not a manufacturer or seller making claims about your product?

Is there any legal basis for this burden of proof on the part of end users, i.e. the subjectivist?

If there is no legal basis what other basis could there be?

Your own belief?
 
aquapiranha said:
This is the same as saying that ghosts exist because no one has yet proved that they don't. The same could be said of crystal healing, aliens, ley lines, witchcraft, shamanism and other number of hocus pocus offerings. Your argument is moot, it is YOU who must prove that your beliefs are correct, not the other way around. This is the one part of the whole ridiculous subjective viewpoint which simply does not hold water. Like the religious you expect us to think like you simply because you say it is so.
Click to expand...

The logical flaw in this argument is it can be argued that it means smoking was harmless until it was demonstrated that smoking and lung cancer were linked.

Unfortunately good science has to contend that absence of evidence can never wholly be evidence of absence, but that under current experimental limits there is no evidence to support the statement.

In other words, the existence of fairies, witchcraft, UFOs and the rest can only ever be put on the 'really, really, really improbable' pile. This is the intellectual honesty that lets the crazies in.

But I think you are making a more fundamental mistake. The implications of suggesting cables make a difference are not simply founded on ill-directed belief. It is the difference between the qualitative and the quantitative as a mode of acquiring understanding of our surroundings. Most default to the qualitative.
 
If we deal with probabilities and not certainties then UFOs, ghosts, witchcraft etc. can be filed under highly improbably. Audibility of cables would depend on personal experience. More likely but not certain.
 
Steven Toy said:
What is the basis for the above statement? Is there a legal basis if you are not a manufacturer or seller making claims about your product?

Is there any legal basis for this burden of proof on the part of end users, i.e. the subjectivist?

If there is no legal basis what other basis could there be?

Your own belief?
Click to expand...

You are at it again trying to dictate terms. What a lot of frothy distraction.
Basis - credibility.
You no prove I no interested. I find it hard to trust your judgement/un humble opinions having seen so much of your output.

By prove I mean show me, expose my hearing tom this wonder product. If I hear a significant difference/improvement you have won, otherwise it is only so many words.

I tried some Mark Grant I/Cs you and others had to change their underware over and yes they may have been slightly clearer than Maplins best but hardly meriting the frothy output of the fans.
 
Steven Toy said:
What is the basis for the above statement? Is there a legal basis if you are not a manufacturer or seller making claims about your product?

Is there any legal basis for this burden of proof on the part of end users, i.e. the subjectivist?

If there is no legal basis what other basis could there be?

Your own belief?
Click to expand...

Outside of jurisprudence, the burden of proof tends to fall on those making the claim, whatever that claim might be.

If someone claims they can fly through the air simply by flapping their arms a lot, it is up to the person making that claim to prove it (and usually by flying through the air by flapping their arms a lot, rather than by publishing elaborate and extravagant claims as to why arm-flapping air travel is possible). It is not incumbent upon those who reject the possibility of arm-based air travel to provide evidence to support their case until the person making the original claim backs it up with evidence.

In other words, if current electronics theory and formal listening tests all point to a power cord making no difference to the sound of a system, it is up to those saying it makes a difference to prove their assertion.

It may be that their assertion is correct and what is 'current' in the theory and the testing ultimately needs revising to accommodate the results of such a claim. Merely saying it doesn't make it so, however.
 
I think all it takes 2-3 wealthy American audiophiles to purchase such a cable, and that is enough to justify it's existence in the market.

It's a bit like going to a large nightclub and asking every woman there if they fancy a shag, hundreds will say no and one of them might say yes.
 
Anh said:
I think all it takes 2-3 wealthy American audiophiles to purchase such a cable, and that is enough to justify it's existence in the market.

It's a bit like going to a large nightclub and asking every woman there if they fancy a shag, hundreds will say no and one of them might say yes.
Click to expand...

But by the time you get to 'yes', you will have been punched in the face by dozens of boyfriends, husbands and bouncers. Which means, by the time you get to 'yes', you'll have forgotten the question.
 
Well such cable makers are getting the proverbial punch in the face by most people who catch sight of these sort of products and their price tags.
 
Steven Toy said:
If we deal with probabilities and not certainties then UFOs, ghosts, witchcraft etc. can be filed under highly improbably. Audibility of cables would depend on personal experience. More likely but not certain.
Click to expand...

But why should personal experience of cable audibility be treated differently than personal experience of seeing a ghost?
 
Are subjective reviews of mains cables and interconnects forbidden under the AUP of this site?

Is it a requirement of the AUP of this site to provide objective proof on demand along with the subjective evaluation?
 
On a lighter note would anyone care to speculate on the rest of the conversation when the TV repairman says to the owner of the £20000 mains cable "sorry mate , I burnt your cable with my soldering iron but it`s O.K. , I`ve got another one in the van"
 
Steven Toy said:
Are subjective reviews of mains cables and interconnects forbidden under the AUP of this site?

Is it a requirement of the AUP of this site to provide objective proof on demand along with the subjective evaluation?
Click to expand...

We live in a democracy. You can make the most loony-tunes statements you feel like making. You can say the sea is blue because of a disproportionately large number of underwater smurfs, or that hedgerows are made up of compacted tree hair, if you like. If you want to say petrol is made of watered down cheddar and shoe leather is made from halibut, go for it.

It doesn't mean such statements deserve to pass unchallenged, just because you think they warrant a free pass.
 
Barrymagrec said:
On a lighter note would anyone care to speculate on the rest of the conversation when the TV repairman says to the owner of the £20000 mains cable "sorry mate , I burnt your cable with my soldering iron but it`s O.K. , I`ve got another one in the van"
Click to expand...

TV repairman? When did you last see a TV repairman? Is this like a 'Life on Mars' thing? Did I hit my head and now it's 1971?

If so, when's Pogles Wood on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top