Idiocy alert re: mp3

[krabapple]

Do I consider the "scientific method" flawed? No, but I don't think enough emphasis is placed on this:

"It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory."

And who is not emphasizing that enough? You do realize, don't you, that that truism about science is the stick with which every quack from audiophiles to creationists try to get their quackery on an *equal footing* with scientific findings?
That's the error -- the idea that the ever-present possibility of being wrong, part of what makes a scientiic claim scientific, means that the tested model is *just as likely to be wrong* as right. Which is stupid.

When I say that mp3s can be made that are audibly indistinguishable from source, I mean nothing more or less than that; I mean I am very sure, both from what other researchers have found, and my own tests, that some people will find some mp3s audibly indistinguishable from source. It does not omit the possibility that some others *won't** find those same mp3s audible indistinguishable from source.
But one does not ignore the data at hand.

If you'd like to hear some files that have been tested as being *very difficult* for most mp3 encoders to handle -- meaning, they *are* prone to being detectably different from source, some even at the 'best' quality of encoding -- see

http://lame.sourceforge.net/gpsycho/quality.html

Like I said, this sort of testing has bene going on for awhile now. No one is making wild and unsubstantiated claims.

[Dob]

And who is not emphasizing that enough?

Many scientists that have spent their entire careers working on a theory become attached to that theory, and are reluctant to let go of it. When evidence arises that is contrary to their theory, or which makes their theory less elegant and simple, they tend to construct elaborate defenses rather than accept the new theory.

This situation is familiar enough that it is the butt of jokes: "Why does it take 25 years for new scientific theories to become accepted? Because that's how long it takes for all the old scientists to die." How many times in history has progress been impeded by stubborn, vain old men who refuse to consider (or sometimes even acknowledge) new ideas?

You do realize, don't you, that that truism about science is the stick with which every quack from audiophiles to creationists try to get their quackery on an *equal footing* with scientific findings?

Are you labeling ideas "quackery" simply because they clash with accepted theories? Or are you saying that they are "quackery" because they have been proven wrong?

Let's take your example of creationism. Has it been disproven? If so, what scientific evidence shows that a supreme being did not create the universe? What scientific theory explains the origin of space, time, energy/matter, and life on earth (as opposed to origin of species)? Does the idea of a supreme being deserve to be considered on an equal footing with "scientific findings" that don't allow for the existence of anything that transcends physical laws?

...some files...have been tested as being *very difficult* for most mp3 encoders to handle -- meaning, they *are* prone to being detectably different from source, some even at the 'best' quality of encoding...

It sounds like you are saying that perceptual masking is at least somewhat file dependent. If so, the whole argument of "absolute" inaudibility would appear to be moot, and the effectiveness of masking would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Of course, that cuts both ways. Just because masking might be audible by a certain individual in a certain case, it doesn't mean that there aren't other cases where masking is inaudible by everyone.

[lukpac]

Are you labeling ideas "quackery" simply because they clash with accepted theories? Or are you saying that they are "quackery" because they have been proven wrong?

I think he's saying they are quackery because they are not rooted in facts or proven tests, but rather anecdotal evidence.

Let's take your example of creationism. Has it been disproven? If so, what scientific evidence shows that a supreme being did not create the universe? What scientific theory explains the origin of space, time, energy/matter, and life on earth (as opposed to origin of species)? Does the idea of a supreme being deserve to be considered on an equal footing with "scientific findings" that don't allow for the existence of anything that transcends physical laws?

Unless I'm mistaken, creationism is discredited in terms of origin of species, rather than origin of life. There's scientific evidence to support Darwinism, but nothing but religious texts to support creationism.

In terms of origin of *life*, well, that's another story. Krab?

It sounds like you are saying that perceptual masking is at least somewhat file dependent. If so, the whole argument of "absolute" inaudibility would appear to be moot, and the effectiveness of masking would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I don't think you're looking at this the right way.

Nobody is suggesting that perceptual masking will *always* work under *all* circumstances. Obviously there are thresholds to things (think 128k MP3s), and below those thresholds you'll hear artifacts. What's being said is that it *can* and *does* work. That's in contrast to "MP3s always sound worse" or "perceptual masking can't work because you are throwing something away".

[Dob]

I think he's saying they are quackery because they are not rooted in facts or proven tests, but rather anecdotal evidence.

That does seem to be the case for many audiophile claims.

Nobody is suggesting that perceptual masking will *always* work under *all* circumstances. Obviously there are thresholds to things (think 128k MP3s), and below those thresholds you'll hear artifacts.

But didn't Krab suggest that masking may/will produce artifacts with certain difficult files, regardless of the thresholds?

[krabapple]

And who is not emphasizing that enough?

Many scientists that have spent their entire careers working on a theory become attached to that theory, and are reluctant to let go of it. When evidence arises that is contrary to their theory, or which makes their theory less elegant and simple, they tend to construct elaborate defenses rather than accept the new theory.

This situation is familiar enough that it is the butt of jokes: "Why does it take 25 years for new scientific theories to become accepted? Because that's how long it takes for all the old scientists to die." How many times in history has progress been impeded by stubborn, vain old men who refuse to consider (or sometimes even acknowledge) new ideas?

You do realize, don't you, that that truism about science is the stick with which every quack from audiophiles to creationists try to get their quackery on an *equal footing* with scientific findings?

Are you labeling ideas "quackery" simply because they clash with accepted theories? Or are you saying that they are "quackery" because they have been proven wrong?

Relatively few theories are literally 'proven wrong'. Far more common is that the existing evidnece does not support them, but supports another theory instead. Most audiophileclaims don't even rise to the level of scientific theory in the first place. Theyr'e simply anecdotes based on highly flawed observation methods. Some not only have poor evidence, but *also* conflict with well-supported models.

I woudl also have to wonder what, if anyting, would constitute 'quackery' in your view. Even something 'proven wrong' in the literal sense, can only be 'proven wrong' in practice by a limited number of people -- wouldn't you also have ot admit that someone else *might* come along and 'prove it right'?

Do you understand that science is, at its core, the attempt to develop a set of *likelihoods* about the real state of the world, though observation and testing of models?

Let's take your example of creationism. Has it been disproven? If so, what scientific evidence shows that a supreme being did not create the universe? What scientific theory explains the origin of space, time, energy/matter, and life on earth (as opposed to origin of species)? Does the idea of a supreme being deserve to be considered on an equal footing with "scientific findings" that don't allow for the existence of anything that transcends physical laws?

No, it does not, from a scientific POV. Some 'theories' are unprovable -- divine creation is one of them. Once you posit an amnipotent supernatural being who can flout all natural laws, then there's really no compelling way to approach such a being scientifically. So it can't possibly be on an equal footing with a scientific theory.

As for creationism, there's no evidence *for* it, and there's tons of evidence that militate against it, and *for* the current theory. So again, it's not enough to say , 'it could still be true'. Invisible elves could be pushing the planets around...hey, we haven't proved they *don't*, have we? So, why isn't that theory on an equal footing with current models of celestial mechanics?

...some files...have been tested as being *very difficult* for most mp3 encoders to handle -- meaning, they *are* prone to being detectably different from source, some even at the 'best' quality of encoding...

It sounds like you are saying that perceptual masking is at least somewhat file dependent.

Yes, I have *always* been saying that, and that's a foundational truth of perceptual masking.

If so, the whole argument of "absolute" inaudibility would appear to be moot, and the effectiveness of masking would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Notice I have never used the phrase 'absolute inaudibility'

[krabapple]

Abiogenesis -- origin of life -- is a *prelude* to the evolution story. But it too is approachable scientifically. Note that from a scientific POV, *any* naturalistic theory is more likely than one that posits complete abrogation of natural laws. Current origin of life models are a fascinating thing to read about. Ever year we're discovering more microorganisms that live in incredibly inhospitable environments, and that plus methods of molecular geneology have really blown the whole field open in the last decade or so.

for refs, (many concerning the hard-core chemistry that could be involved in biogenesis) see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/modorlife.html

and here's a FAQ debunking creationist bullshit concerning abiogenesis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

I suppose that in certain - some? most? - cases, the audible difference between, say, the master tape and the redbook CD is greater than the difference between, say, a track on a redbook CD and a LAME VBR mp3 of that redbook track encoded at a reasonable bitrate.

[Dob]

...what, if anyting, would constitute 'quackery' in your view...

Any dubious claim made in an obvious attempt to get me to part with my money (or some other agenda) certainly arouses my suspicions. But when seemingly intelligent and reasonable people believe something that I don't, I wonder what it is that they know, or how they came to those conclusions.

Even something 'proven wrong' in the literal sense, can only be 'proven wrong' in practice by a limited number of people -- wouldn't you also have to admit that someone else *might* come along and 'prove it right'?

If some guy making an outrageously bogus claim ends up aceing a double blind test, what choice do I have but to take his ideas (or his product) seriously? Although my first reaction would be to think that I was duped.

Do you understand that science is, at its core, the attempt to develop a set of *likelihoods* about the real state of the world, though observation and testing of models?

For complex phenomena that are not easily explained, I would agree that it must be a case of "preponderance of evidence." But wouldn't that necessarily involve a subjective evaluation process? If I believe that theories should ideally be simple and elegant, I might favor such a theory even though it may have a few more "exceptions" than a competing theory, and I might argue that these exceptions, though more numerous, are less important.

We should keep in mind that our observations can be incomplete, biased, and distorted. Let's suppose that you watch a man make an object disappear, then reappear. What did you just "observe"? What is the "likelihood" that the object disappeared? What is the "real state"? Would you change your answers if the man was wearing a white smock and standing in a lab, instead of a black cape and standing on a stage? Think about the various assumptions that you might make depending on the situation. Further, think about your ability to distinguish between real magic from a trick, or (slightly more realistically) between a trick and the demonstration of the world's first teleportation machine.

Some 'theories' are unprovable -- divine creation is one of them. Once you posit an omnipotent supernatural being who can flout all natural laws, then there's really no compelling way to approach such a being scientifically.

Using the physical sciences, no. But I believe that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence. By that I mean that there is a purpose and a reason for it, and that we are not a byproduct of random processes, drifting aimlessly through time in a meaningless universe. IMO, any theory of the origin of our existence must, at least in part, be philosophical...but I also believe that such theories should be reasonably compatible with physical science.

As for creationism, there's no evidence *for* it...

On the contrary, some accepted theories of the origin of the universe assume an instantaneous moment of creation.

...there's tons of evidence that militate against it...

Tons??? Again, I ask -- what evidence is there that militates against the creation the universe?

...and *for* the current theory.

Which is?

Invisible elves could be pushing the planets around...hey, we haven't proved they *don't*, have we? So, why isn't that theory on an equal footing with current models of celestial mechanics?

LOL. However, our model of celestial mechanics is based on observation -- we still don't fully understand how gravity and inertia operate on a cosmic scale. The model is often being adjusted to accomodate new discoveries. I believe that is why the current model includes the mysterious substance known as "dark matter."

In any event, are invisible elves more bizarre than "charm quarks" and "strange quarks"?

Notice I have never used the phrase 'absolute inaudibility'

True. But the fellow you quoted at the beginning of this thread seems to be hung up on it.

[Dob]

Abiogenesis -- origin of life -- is a *prelude* to the evolution story.

Abiogenesis?? Let's call it what it really is -- spontaneous generation. But I guess "spontaneous generation" has too many negative connotations..."abiogenesis" sounds much more rigorous and scientific.

Note that from a scientific POV, *any* naturalistic theory is more likely than one that posits complete abrogation of natural laws.

If a naturalistic theory of the origin of life requires the total rejection (as it seems to me it must) of the idea that life is intelligently -- not to mention beautifully -- designed, then I would find that proposition absurd.

[Dob]

...the audible difference between, say, the master tape and the redbook CD is greater than the difference between, say, a track on a redbook CD and a LAME VBR mp3 of that redbook track encoded at a reasonable bitrate.

IMO an MP3 file does seem to get the tonality right, which to me is of more importance than any slight losses in resolution.

[lukpac]

Tons??? Again, I ask -- what evidence is there that militates against the creation the universe?

Creationism != creation of the universe/life.

[Rspaight]

If a naturalistic theory of the origin of life requires the total rejection (as it seems to me it must) of the idea that life is intelligently -- not to mention beautifully -- designed, then I would find that proposition absurd.

Couldn't abiogenesis just be another example of the dumbfounding intricacy of the natural world that leads so many to presuppose a creator? Does believing in a creator automatically require one to throw up their hands and give up trying to understand the origin of life?

It sounds to me that many propose a line beyond which we can't understand the workings of life using scientific investigation. Some set it 6,000 years ago, and say the universe popped into being at that point, fully formed. Others much earlier, saying that evolution and other things happened, but before that we can't understand biogenesis without resorting to supernatural explanations. If the "intelligence" is complete enough to be scientifically observable on one side of the line, why not on the other?

If anything, I'd think the case for an "intelligent designer" is made *more* compelling the more we rigorously understand about the process, not less. Perhaps that's because if I did choose to believe in a creator, I'd tend more toward the master craftsman than the magician.

Ryan

[krabapple]

...what, if anyting, would constitute 'quackery' in your view...

Any dubious claim made in an obvious attempt to get me to part with my money (or some other agenda) certainly arouses my suspicions. But when seemingly intelligent and reasonable people believe something that I don't, I wonder what it is that they know, or how they came to those conclusions.

Even something 'proven wrong' in the literal sense, can only be 'proven wrong' in practice by a limited number of people -- wouldn't you also have to admit that someone else *might* come along and 'prove it right'?

If some guy making an outrageously bogus claim ends up aceing a double blind test, what choice do I have but to take his ideas (or his product) seriously? Although my first reaction would be to think that I was duped.

So would you agee that to *accurately * judge whether something is an 'outrageously bogus claim' in the first place, one has to possess a certain level of knowledge about the subject, no?

People who find evolution, for example, to be 'outrageously bogus' , tend to understand ir poorly if at all. Ditto people who find the possibility of transparent mp3s 'outrageously bogus'. Meanwhile, people who do know a lot about evolution tend to find creationism 'outrageously bogus'.

Do you understand that science is, at its core, the attempt to develop a set of *likelihoods* about the real state of the world, though observation and testing of models?

For complex phenomena that are not easily explained, I would agree that it must be a case of "preponderance of evidence." But wouldn't that necessarily involve a subjective evaluation process? If I believe that theories should ideally be simple and elegant, I might favor such a theory even though it may have a few more "exceptions" than a competing theory, and I might argue that these exceptions, though more numerous, are less important.

We should keep in mind that our observations can be incomplete, biased, and distorted. Let's suppose that you watch a man make an object disappear, then reappear. What did you just "observe"? What is the "likelihood" that the object disappeared? What is the "real state"? Would you change your answers if the man was wearing a white smock and standing in a lab, instead of a black cape and standing on a stage? Think about the various assumptions that you might make depending on the situation. Further, think about your ability to distinguish between real magic from a trick, or (slightly more realistically) between a trick and the demonstration of the world's first teleportation machine.

The beauty of science is that claims are (or should be) always traceable back to some reported observation and/or test. At which point one can only 'subjectively' evaluate its worth. Education and reasoning come into play, obviously.

Some 'theories' are unprovable -- divine creation is one of them. Once you posit an omnipotent supernatural being who can flout all natural laws, then there's really no compelling way to approach such a being scientifically.

Using the physical sciences, no. But I believe that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence.

uh oh.

By that I mean that there is a purpose and a reason for it, and that we are not a byproduct of random processes, drifting aimlessly through time in a meaningless universe.

and how would you go about elevating this belief from the realm of faith?

IMO, any theory of the origin of our existence must, at least in part, be philosophical..

that's your premise , but it's not required in science (except to the extent that science is philosophically 'materialist')

.but I also believe that such theories should be reasonably compatible with physical science.[/QUTE]

[shrug] Once you posit god, anything is possible.

As for creationism, there's no evidence *for* it...

On the contrary, some accepted theories of the origin of the universe assume an instantaneous moment of creation.

I'm of course referring to biological creationism -- the idea that species don't evolved, are not related by lineage: they are created 'as is' by God.. You don't see creationsits militating against the teaching of cosmology in schools, do you?

...there's tons of evidence that militate against it...

Tons??? Again, I ask -- what evidence is there that militates against the creation the universe?[/QUOTE]

Again, you're confused.

...and *for* the current theory.

Which is?

Invisible elves could be pushing the planets around...hey, we haven't proved they *don't*, have we? So, why isn't that theory on an equal footing with current models of celestial mechanics?

LOL. However, our model of celestial mechanics is based on observation -- we still don't fully understand how gravity and inertia operate on a cosmic scale.

So, why not posit those elves? They could explain *everything*.

The model is often being adjusted to accomodate new discoveries. I believe that is why the current model includes the mysterious substance known as "dark matter."

Dark matter has little to do with why the planets move the way they do. It's posited to explain the large-scale structure and dynamics of the universe (along with dark energy, the
'anti gravity' that Einstein propsed, then discarded, but which now appears likelyt o exist, in order to explain the rate of expansion).

In any event, are invisible elves more biizarre than "charm quarks" and "strange quarks"?

Perhaps not more bizaree, but considerably more fanciful.

Notice I have never used the phrase 'absolute inaudibility'

True. But the fellow you quoted at the beginning of this thread seems to be hung up on it.

Right -- and I've been trying to disabuse him of that straw man notion ever since.

[krabapple]

Abiogenesis -- origin of life -- is a *prelude* to the evolution story.

Abiogenesis?? Let's call it what it really is -- spontaneous generation. But I guess "spontaneous generation" has too many negative connotations..."abiogenesis" sounds much more rigorous and scientific.

er.. Dob..did you actually *look at* those talk.origins sites I posted? You'll see the term 'spontaneous generation' right up top.

The only 'negative' is the idea that spontaneous generation' means instant appearance of *complex* life, with no development beforehand. Obviously the generation of the first, simplest living systems had to be 'spontaneous ' in the sense that there was a time before it happened, and a time after...but not in the sense that there was no lead-up to it.

Note that from a scientific POV, *any* naturalistic theory is more likely than one that posits complete abrogation of natural laws.

If a naturalistic theory of the origin of life requires the total rejection (as it seems to me it must) of the idea that life is intelligently -- not to mention beautifully -- designed, then I would find that proposition absurd.

That's simply the old 'argument from incredulity'.

A naturalistic theory deosn't *require* rejecting intelligent design -- it merely finds it *unnecessary*. You could add 'invisible elves' to any theory, and it wouldn't make the theory untrue, but it wouldn't make invisble elves necessary to the theory either.

A theory involving intelligent design begs the question of where the 'intelligent designer' came from, and thus is no more parsimonious than one that doesn't.

If you find the naturalistic generation of complex patterns absurd , then i guess snowflakes must give you quite a giggle. And nature exhibits many examples of design that by no stretch of the imagination could be considred 'beautiful' -- or even particulalrly competent. This is more charitably explained by currrent models of evolution, than by positing an absent-minded deisnger. (see e.g. "The Panda's Thumb' or selected works of Richard Dawkins...or better yet, might I suggest again that you spend some time reading the materials at talk.origins?)

[Dob]

People who find evolution, for example, to be 'outrageously bogus' , tend to understand it poorly if at all…Meanwhile, people who do know a lot about evolution tend to find creationism 'outrageously bogus'.

Uh oh…

and how would you go about elevating this belief from the realm of faith?

I appreciate how your choice of the word “elevating” delicately implies the inferiority of faith-based beliefs in comparison with (I’m assuming) scientific ones. The reason I have faith is because the scientific method has no answer for “Why do I exist?” -- so your question doesn't make sense to me.

I'm of course referring to biological creationism -- the idea that species don't evolved, are not related by lineage: they are created 'as is' by God.. You don't see creationists militating against the teaching of cosmology in schools, do you?

OK, I think I get it. By “creationism,” you’re referring only to the specific arguments against evolution, correct?
The dictionary definition of creationism states “usually as described in Genesis”…I was obviously using the more liberal meaning.