Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

Peter Wieck <pfjw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:26 pm, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article <fpg2r602...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Peter Wieck <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 10:51 am, Greg Wormald
> > > > You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows
is
> > > > impossible for me to accept.
> >
> > > OK... With respect, you are committing the fallacy of "Begging the
> > > Question".
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > My understanding of "begging the question" is where the argument's
> > conclusion is actually one of it's presumptions/assumptions. I don't
> > think that's what I said, it certainly wasn't what I meant. I meant
that
> > I couldn't accept the OP's assumptions and therefore the rest of his
> > argument was unacceptable to me.
> >
> > > (*snip*)
> >
> > Most of the rest of your considerations are accepted.
> >
> > That does not change what I heard, or the conclusions I reached. I
(and
> > others) have heard differences in connectors/cables many times in
blind
> > trials. If other people have not heard differences in different trials
> > that's something to investigate, but does not in itself invalidate the
> > contradicting trials.
> >
> > I also do not accept the assumption that the basic parameters V I & R
> > are fully able to describe the transmission of a complex musical
signal
> > down a connector, and neither do a lot of scientists.
> >
> > Many scientists also eschew the use of ABX testing in it's usual form
> > (as described here a number of times) as being adequate for making the
> > conclusions that are often made here.
> >
> > It is also now fairly commonly accepted that the influence of the bias
> > of the experimenter often influences the perceived outcome.
> >
> > I further note in your response that you were fairly careful to use
> > words like "not necessarily" and "most" and "likely" and I approve.
> >
> > Greg

> Greg:

> With respect, many "Scientists" do not accept Global Warming, do
> accept "Creationism"

re: creationsim -- Many? Only if you keep the quotes around 'scientists'.

The number of credible scientists who believe in creationism -- that all
the species
were created at once, as we see them today -- is zero.  The number who
'believe in' 
intelligent design -- that evolution does not occur via mutation, natural
selection and 
genetic drift, but rather requires intervention of an 'intelligence' -- is
miniscule, and 
almost none are biologists. The number is far from 'many'. 

___
-S 
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic