[sunjam]

Not real scientist (aka pseudo scientist) would take 0.632455532 μPa = 0 μPa and claim they are the same, or in their language "exactly the same"

Hmm... something just pop up my mind while I am listening to my "absolutely better reconstructed" Hi-Res music...

Why people believe in "flat Earth"?

Did someone (supposed-to-be an "expert") show some "scientific evidence" to those believers with some real-life experiments / demos to prove that Earth is flat?

Did those believers experience similar "scientific evidence" in their daily life and these experiences confirm the "scientific evidence" the "expert" shown to them?

Would these "confirmation of the scientific evidence shown by the expert" cause these believers to truely believe in "flat Earth" and become a hardcore flat Earth believer because they do really experience the "evidence" themselves?

When other shows these "flat Earth believer" some objective and scientific evidence that the Earth is not flat, these hard-core believers would just consider those people who bring the supporting facts are mentally blocked and consider the supporting facts are not scientific and not objective without a second thought?

====== banning culture =====

One of the indications of these hardcore believers is that they refuse to listen to people who bring the facts that are not compatible with their believe. They would like to silence those people and remove all the facts those people bring in front of them as these facts make them feel unease.

For people who bring with supporting facts to debunk the questionable claim, they dare to listen to the other side, i.e. they are willing to listen to the "reasons" why the hardcore believers believe in the (pseudo) science claim as they really want to find out what's true (as they know that they could be wrong too).

Hardcore believers in "flat Earth", however, cannot withstand any chance they could be wrong. They don't want to be challenged with their beliefs. It would be very difficult to change their belief as they believe it wholeheartedly.

=== right or wrong ===

People with critical thinking would like to find out "what's right and what's wrong". They don't really care who's right and who's wrong.
People who are hardcore "flat Earth" believer would just like to show that "they are right"

Disclaimer: all these analysis about "flat Earth" believer are just food for thought. I didn't say anyone of us is a "flat Earth" believer.

 

[Davesrose]

Did someone (supposed-to-be an "expert") show some "scientific evidence" to those believers with some real-life experiments / demos to prove that Earth is flat?

No, there's a minority of people who are more susceptible to believe in conspiracy theories. They'll be in a "team" that supports their beliefs (which in this case are not based in any scientific evidence). Conspiracy theorists are also more likely to believe that airplanes spray chemtrails (instead of it being condensation trails), or that FDA approved vaccines are the big money makers for pharma and they're in it to cause autism and vaccine injury (or now that there's tracking microchips going into your blood).

Weird you've went here as some attempt at comparison, when people who have argued with you actually have experience producing commercial audio, have an academic degree in audio, or do have professional experience in computer science. It seems you keep trying to insist you're enlightening us by repeating the same generalities of "bigger must always be better" (or audibly more accurate).

I've followed YouTube videos of flat Earth and chemtrails, as I find it interesting that there's people out there showing a lack of understanding of any science and get confirmation bias with their team of tin foil hatters. Since I'm involved with medical communications, I've done more reading of some of the crazy conspiracies of anti-vaxxers (their new one is that "spike proteins" from mRNA vaccinations can "shed" and harm "the pure bloods").

Flat Earth is a special kind of ignorance in which people seem to lose any science they had in school. Why do objects fall? Not gravity, but they say air density. They can't understand that because of the size of the Earth, 15 degree spin per hour at equator is 1,037mph (but we can't feel it because we're on the Earth). Gravity is why the Earth is a sphere, and why bodies of water don't spin off from the surface. The heliocentric model explains seasons, eclipses, and star trails with long exposure photos. So it can be entertaining to hear what weird things flerfs come up with. The conspiracy side is that NASA is heavily funded and has military all around the border of a disc (which is depicted as Gleason’s 19th century projection), and that there's an ice wall keeping our oceans from spilling off the flat Earth. Never mind that modern technology relies on satellites (and proves relativity), there's some people that believe in a biblical firmament or that the sky is a Truman Show TV screen.

 

[theveterans]

Now we're going off topic with these political stuff that has nothing to do with audio science. Poor analogy on both OP and the poster before this one for me

 

[sunjam]

Now we're going off topic with these political stuff that has nothing to do with audio science. Poor analogy on both OP and the poster before this one for me

Sorry, it is a bit off topic. I didn't say it is an analogy of what we are discussing here.

The reason I associated "flat Earth" believer and this topic in my mind is because I was considered as a hardcore "flat Earth" believer when I bring a similar topic like "Hi-Res is useful in reconstructing better audio signal when compared with CD" to ASR. Please just ignore the topic about "flat Earth" as it should have nothing to do with our discussion.

 

[BS5711]

I think this thread has more to do with a persons psychology than knowledge about audio.

Sunjam .... don't you look back through all your comments here and realise why you got kicked off ASR ?

I am not interested in the technical stuff because it is above my pay grade and has no bearing on my enjoyment of music but even if you were right and everyone else was wrong (seems unlikely in the extreme) would a reasonable person not simply have had enough by now ?

What do you hope to gain ?

Don't you have better things to do with your time ?

Doesn't all the debating and formulating your posts that you think will finally convince people just simply wear thin, it has been a week and 15 pages for goodness sake.

 

[Davesrose]

Now we're going off topic with these political stuff that has nothing to do with audio science. Poor analogy on both OP and the poster before this one for me

I've never viewed flat Earth or chemtrail conspiracies as being "political stuff". The OP went there about comparing science discussion, so I detailed how flat Earth conspiracy is far removed from any science argument.

 

[sunjam]

I've followed YouTube videos of flat Earth and chemtrails, as I find it interesting that there's people out there showing a lack of understanding of any science and get confirmation bias with their team of tin foil hatters.

Let's talk about confirmation bias. I think it should be related to our discussion.

How many of you truely understand what is confirmation bias? It is defined as below (source: wiki)

Let's do a very simple test here to see if you really know what is confirmation bias:


If you see 4 different boxes with gradient of greyscales in the middle column, you just say what you see.

What if I told you that there are something wrong with your vision, as you SHOULD see 4 different static grey color boxes instead of gradients.

The following picture show you the second box is actually a static grey color box (this is the actual capture of the second box in the above picture, you can try to capture it and see for yourself):




You may say, "Cool, now, I know I got tricked by my visual perception".

AFTER knowing the fact that all the 4 boxes in the middle column of the first picture are indeed just static grey boxes (instead of gradient of greyscale)..

Now, let me ask you a tough question.... a really really tough question:




What do you see in the middle column of the above picture?

Answer A: 4 different boxes of gradient of greyscale? or
Answer B: 4 different boxes of static grey color?

It is not a trick question.

Just answer it based on what you see.

Your answer may be

"Well....hmm...well... hmm... Answer A...

Hang on.... should I pick B ?"

Should you pick B?

I just ask you what you see.

If you answer B, your answer is affected by confirmation bias.

If you answer A, your answer is just reporting what you can see with the above picture.

(Actual answer: it is exaclty the same picture you saw at the beginning of this page. It is just scaled down to a smaller size)

Do you have confirmation bias? Or you have a different definition of confirmation bias from the wiki I shown earlier?

 

[theveterans]

My personal opinion though is that it's really hard to screw up audio reproduction on electronics level these days to a broken/distorted sound at your eardrum degree. Even at 5% THD using tube amps, most don't hear broken sound and most don't hear any distasteful/badly-distorted subjective listening experience even at that level of distortion, let alone hear broken sound using NOS and filterless DACs. My DAC (Schiit Yggdrasil More is Better) measures SOTA for an OS R2R DAC yet I run it on NOS and filterless (yes, I can turn off the digital filter completely so it's also filterless and not just NOS) I still don't hear any supposed broken sound or treble roll-off (then again, my high frequency hearing is about 15KHz at best). I can also toggle the OS mode on and get 4x oversampling with Schiit's prioprietary filter which is very close to Chord's WTA filter in FFT spectrum (both are very steep brickwall at Nyquist frequency) and both have very long pre and post ringing in the impulse response

 

[Davesrose]

Let's do a very simple test here to see if you really know what is confirmation bias:

LOL....except this isn't an example of confirmation bias. It's an example of optical illusion. It's one of many examples of a graphical contrast illusion (in which our brains fill in information from what our brain thinks is true):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

 

[sunjam]

I think this thread has more to do with a persons psychology than knowledge about audio.

Sunjam .... don't you look back through all your comments here and realise why you got kicked off ASR ?

I am not interested in the technical stuff because it is above my pay grade and has no bearing on my enjoyment of music but even if you were right and everyone else was wrong (seems unlikely in the extreme) would a reasonable person not simply have had enough by now ?

What do you hope to gain ?

Don't you have better things to do with your time ?

Doesn't all the debating and formulating your posts that you think will finally convince people just simply wear thin, it has been a week and 15 pages for goodness sake.

"why you got kicked off ASR ?" <=== I know why they don't want to hear a single word from me. I fully understand. If you don't mind, could you share your view why they have to silence me and delete all my old discussion with them? (You can PM me if you think it is off-topic).

"I am not interested in the technical stuff" <=== I thought we are talking about technical, scientific stuffs here in an audio science forum. I would assume ALL the people who join our discussion is interested in the technical stuff". Am I wrong?

"What do you hope to gain" <=== I want to gain knowledge. I know I am not 100% correct all the time. I know I don't know a lot of things. For example, I'd just re-sharpen my skill in SPL calculation. I did check some reference before I gave out the answer. (BTW, please let me know if my calculation is wrong). Meanwhile, I want to share my knowledge with other people.

"Don't you have better things to do with your time ?" <=== Thanks for your reminder, I am doing what I like to do.

If you asked me what I want to archieve, I want to promote critical thinking.

 

[sunjam]

LOL....except this isn't an example of confirmation bias. It's an example of optical illusion. It's one of many examples of a graphical contrast illusion (in which our brains fill in information from what our brain thinks is true):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

Agreed, it is a visual illusion. Here, I used it to demonstrate the mis-understanding of confirmation bias.

If you don't mind, may I know your answer for the last question? Would you pick A or B? (feel free not to answer)

 

[sunjam]

My personal opinion though is that it's really hard to screw up audio reproduction on electronics level these days to a broken/distorted sound at your eardrum degree. Even at 5% THD using tube amps, most don't hear broken sound and most don't hear any distasteful/badly-distorted subjective listening experience even at that level of distortion, let alone hear broken sound using NOS and filterless DACs. My DAC (Schiit Yggdrasil More is Better) measures SOTA for an OS R2R DAC yet I run it on NOS and filterless (yes, I can turn off the digital filter completely so it's also filterless and not just NOS) I still don't hear any supposed broken sound or treble roll-off (then again, my high frequency hearing is about 15KHz at best). I can also toggle the OS mode on and get 4x oversampling with Schiit's prioprietary filter which is very close to Chord's WTA filter in FFT spectrum (both are very steep brickwall at Nyquist frequency) and both have very long pre and post ringing in the impulse response

Even for something like below, it would sound good to our ears. I don't think people would hear broken sound with the following wavefrom. Someone claims that our ears are actually doing the "final stage" filtering.

 

[BS5711]

"why you got kicked off ASR ?" <=== I know why they don't want to hear a single word from me. I fully understand. If you don't mind, could you share your view why they have to silence me and delete all my old discussion with them? (You can PM me if you think it is off-topic).

"I am not interested in the technical stuff" <=== I thought we are talking about technical, scientific stuffs here in an audio science forum. I would assume ALL the people who join our discussion is interested in the technical stuff". Am I wrong?

"What do you hope to gain" <=== I want to gain knowledge. I know I am not 100% correct all the time. I know I don't know a lot of things. For example, I'd just re-sharpen my skill in SPL calculation. I did check some reference before I gave out the answer. (BTW, please let me know if my calculation is wrong). Meanwhile, I want to share my knowledge with other people.

"Don't you have better things to do with your time ?" <=== Thanks for your reminder, I am doing what I like to do.

If you asked me what I want to archieve, I want to promote critical thinking.

I suspect you got kicked off ASR because you became a pain in the backside.

I am interested in the technical stuff in general but not particularly in this instance because the thread is going nowhere. My interest in this thread is the mindset of somebody that believes they hear what science says they shouldn't then seeks confirmation via their own theories rather than in the grey matter between their ears. I attempted to engage on that matter with you but you don't understand my question so I gave up and I have no interest in trying again.

You don't want to gain knowledge because you think you know better than everybody else already and you don't want to share knowledge you just want to spout your beliefs.

If this is what you want to do with your time perhaps you should get out more.

You are in no way promoting critical thinking, you are utterly unable to think critically because you are so full of your self importance born out of believing you know an awful lot more than you do based on the constant rebuttal that you get with next to no agreement. Is that because you are always right or because you are always wrong ?


And on your optical illusion I see grey scale on both because my eyes function properly, our vision is tricked and that is very hard or impossible to override even with the knowledge that what you see isn't actually what is there. Audio is not a lot different, you can be fooled despite that you know you are hearing something that isn't even real.

 

[Davesrose]

Agreed, it is a visual illusion. Here, I used it to demonstrate the mis-understanding of confirmation bias.

If you don't mind, may I know your answer for the last question? Would you pick A or B? (feel free not to answer)

Eh, you're saying you have been disingenuous in claiming this example is "confirmation bias", and now you want me to ignore that and answer your made up argument? My undergrad is a BFA in Art (then I got a MS in medical illustration, worked in 3D animation, and currently work with software development for interactive apps and websites). I know the correct answer as to what the values of the squares are (as it's the same illusion as I linked with Wikipedia). If you're going to continue to insist I don't know "the correct answer" due to "confirmation bias" (when intellectually I know this simple visual illusion) this only amplifies how this isn't engagement in critical thinking.

 

[sunjam]

Eh, you're saying you have been disingenuous in claiming this example is "confirmation bias", and now you want me to ignore that and answer your made up argument? My undergrad is a BFA in Art (then I got a MS in medical illustration, worked in 3D animation, and currently work with software development for interactive apps and websites). I know the correct answer as to what the values of the squares are (as it's the same illusion as I linked with Wikipedia). If you're going to continue to insist I don't know "the correct answer" due to "confirmation bias" (when intellectually I know this simple visual illusion) this only amplifies how this isn't engagement in critical thinking.

I understand your professional qualification, and your view point.
I also understand the reason why you try to avoid answering A or B to the question (again, I am not pressing you for answer. Feel free not to answer explicitly).

Just wondering why you said in your reply that I insist you don't know the 'correct answer'? Did I reply with anything saying that you don't know the "correct answer"? I think I didn't. Please let me know if I did.

In the test I posted earlier, there is no "correct" or "wrong" answer to the last question.

Do you think one answer is correct and the other one is wrong?

By the way, I believe that confirmation bias is a well-studied area in Psychology (I am not sure the coverage of "confirmation bias" in the Medical Illustration study. It may be a lot but I cannot tell).

If you know of any one who is major in Psychology, I sugggest you can check with them to see what's their understanding of confirmation bias and see if your definition aline with them.

Cheers