If I can`t hear it, it doesn`t exist...maybe.
by: Mike Vans Evers
If I can`t hear it, it doesn`t exist� and if it can`t be "proven" with a Double Blind Test (DBT), it doesnt exist� are prime objectivist declarations. These war cries are used with great vigor to condemn the subjectivist`s observations that different audio system wires and cables "sound" different. Many objectivists go further and reason that because DBTs have been unable to "prove" the existence of sonic wire differences, all those who say they can hear it, must either be lying or are misguided by marketing claims, and have opinions that are the result of the "Placebo Effect." (Let`s dispense with the ones who lie immediately, as they do neither side any good. If you`re lying, you`re lying, and eventually you`ll trip yourself up.)
Objectivists get frustrated, and often a little angry when, in the face of what they consider a lack of proof, the subjectivists still insist that wires and cables do indeed have a "sound." Of course, the subjectivists also get frustrated, and often a little angry when they point out the flaws in DBTs and the objectivists still insist on the sacred cow status of Double Blind Tests.
On the surface, the arguments for the need for DBTs can seem to be on solid ground. (However, we shall see shortly that this solidity is an illusion.) In any event, the argument that the lack-of-DBT-proof is itself a "proof" that wires don`t have a sound, is scientifically 100% incorrect. The only valid comment you can make about a Double Blind Test whose goal isn`t proven, is that this particular test wasn`t able to prove the goal, not that the goal is false.
Using a scientifically false statement as a premise, and then taking logically correct steps from that starting point will always lead you to an incorrect conclusion. (This is just bad science, but some call this sort of mistake pseudo-science�) The lack of DBT "proof" is not a valid premise for saying all those who say they can hear it must be misguided by marketing claims and have opinions that are the result of the "Placebo Effect"�
Let us continue refuting these objectivist claims by looking at another of their favorite, but equally myth-taken catcalls, the "Placebo Effect." We can visit its fall from stardom (and pedestal transformation from marble to quicksand) in an article found in the Tampa Tribune, May 24, 2001.
Researchers say the placebo effect is fake
By Susan Okie of the Washington Post
Surprising new evidence has called into question the existence of the "placebo effect," the widely accepted principle that people with various illnesses will often improve if given a dummy pill or sham treatment.
For a half-century, doctors have been taught that this phenomenon is partly responsible for drugs' effectiveness. Researchers have taken it into account when testing new medicines. Biologists and psychologists have searched for its cause. Ethicists have even debated whether doctors could justifiably deceive patients to take advantage of it.
But in the most comprehensive effort yet to evaluate whether placebos work, Danish researchers conclude that they have little effect after all and should not be used outside research settings.
Their analysis examined 114 studies of various symptoms or disorders and found that the placebos were no better than no treatment for most of the problems studied.
Placebos did appear to produce modest benefit in studies of pain and in some other studies where the outcome was similarly subjective.
(For the sake of continuity, intervening parts of the article have been omitted.)
...Among individual conditions, only pain showed evidence of a modest but significant placebo response.
Even for pain, "I'm very much in doubt" whether the effect is real, Hrobjartsson* said. "The difference between placebo and no treatment could also reflect reporting bias" on the part of the study participants." (* Asbojoern Hrobjartsson of the University of Copenhagen and the Nordic Cochran Centre, the new study's principal author.)
As a result of this article we see that the use of the "placebo effect" has a �valid counter example,� and has now become a questionable tool for arguing the claims of those who hear cable and wire differences.
The next datum to absorb is from an article of importance by Dr. Greg Comnes in issue 117 (April/May 1999) of "The Absolute Sound." In part this article discusses the limited usefulness of the Double Blind Test (DBT). It is interesting to note that the results from numbers of traditional clinical double blind trials of the three top antidepressant medicines, each trial lasting 4 to 6 weeks, showed that each drug provided patients relief from depression equally well, i.e. one did not work "better" than another.
However, the higher number of real world variables found in some other types of tests (not DBTs) have actually made them more important contributors to the "pharmacoeconomics" of treating patients efficiently. (An important factor in a multi-billion dollar industry.) In these tests it was found that patients were actually much more likely to remain on one antidepressant rather than another...one did work "better." A direct contradiction of the Double Blind Test results. The drug company�s conclusion was that while double blind tests are useful, they are hardly the last word--as many would have us believe. (See Mitchell, et al., "Effectiveness and Economic Impact of Antidepressant Medications: A Review," The American Journal of Managed Care Vol. 3, no. 2, February 1997.)
Now we can objectively discount one of the objectivist�s favorite tools (the double blind test) because it�s been discovered that its inherent and rigidly limited test conditions can produce incorrect results. (Have we been steered in the wrong direction? Have we had the gender wrong all this time? Hamburger anyone?)
That leaves us with our very first argument, �if I can�t hear it, it doesn�t exist,� to bounce around. Here are a few paragraphs from a book called "Waves and the Ear," (Bergeik, et al., "Science Study Series" from Doubleday, 1960, pages 102-103). They will establish one reason why Joe Schmoe can hear cable differences and Joe Blow can�t.
"We do not hear instantaneously. Somehow a complicated sound which is a sequence of spectral patterns succeeding one another Arings in our ears@ for a moment after we have heard it. It is during this moment that we can best imitate an unfamiliar sound. Of course, the sound does not truly ring in our ears; it is presumably stored momentarily in the brain B just how is not clear.
Most of our memories of sounds are of a different sort. They are not transient; they are permanent. We have stored in our heads a host of sound patterns. It is after these that we pattern our speech, and it is with the aid of these that we identify the words that we hear.
by: Mike Vans Evers
If I can`t hear it, it doesn`t exist� and if it can`t be "proven" with a Double Blind Test (DBT), it doesnt exist� are prime objectivist declarations. These war cries are used with great vigor to condemn the subjectivist`s observations that different audio system wires and cables "sound" different. Many objectivists go further and reason that because DBTs have been unable to "prove" the existence of sonic wire differences, all those who say they can hear it, must either be lying or are misguided by marketing claims, and have opinions that are the result of the "Placebo Effect." (Let`s dispense with the ones who lie immediately, as they do neither side any good. If you`re lying, you`re lying, and eventually you`ll trip yourself up.)
Objectivists get frustrated, and often a little angry when, in the face of what they consider a lack of proof, the subjectivists still insist that wires and cables do indeed have a "sound." Of course, the subjectivists also get frustrated, and often a little angry when they point out the flaws in DBTs and the objectivists still insist on the sacred cow status of Double Blind Tests.
On the surface, the arguments for the need for DBTs can seem to be on solid ground. (However, we shall see shortly that this solidity is an illusion.) In any event, the argument that the lack-of-DBT-proof is itself a "proof" that wires don`t have a sound, is scientifically 100% incorrect. The only valid comment you can make about a Double Blind Test whose goal isn`t proven, is that this particular test wasn`t able to prove the goal, not that the goal is false.
Using a scientifically false statement as a premise, and then taking logically correct steps from that starting point will always lead you to an incorrect conclusion. (This is just bad science, but some call this sort of mistake pseudo-science�) The lack of DBT "proof" is not a valid premise for saying all those who say they can hear it must be misguided by marketing claims and have opinions that are the result of the "Placebo Effect"�
Let us continue refuting these objectivist claims by looking at another of their favorite, but equally myth-taken catcalls, the "Placebo Effect." We can visit its fall from stardom (and pedestal transformation from marble to quicksand) in an article found in the Tampa Tribune, May 24, 2001.
Researchers say the placebo effect is fake
By Susan Okie of the Washington Post
Surprising new evidence has called into question the existence of the "placebo effect," the widely accepted principle that people with various illnesses will often improve if given a dummy pill or sham treatment.
For a half-century, doctors have been taught that this phenomenon is partly responsible for drugs' effectiveness. Researchers have taken it into account when testing new medicines. Biologists and psychologists have searched for its cause. Ethicists have even debated whether doctors could justifiably deceive patients to take advantage of it.
But in the most comprehensive effort yet to evaluate whether placebos work, Danish researchers conclude that they have little effect after all and should not be used outside research settings.
Their analysis examined 114 studies of various symptoms or disorders and found that the placebos were no better than no treatment for most of the problems studied.
Placebos did appear to produce modest benefit in studies of pain and in some other studies where the outcome was similarly subjective.
(For the sake of continuity, intervening parts of the article have been omitted.)
...Among individual conditions, only pain showed evidence of a modest but significant placebo response.
Even for pain, "I'm very much in doubt" whether the effect is real, Hrobjartsson* said. "The difference between placebo and no treatment could also reflect reporting bias" on the part of the study participants." (* Asbojoern Hrobjartsson of the University of Copenhagen and the Nordic Cochran Centre, the new study's principal author.)
As a result of this article we see that the use of the "placebo effect" has a �valid counter example,� and has now become a questionable tool for arguing the claims of those who hear cable and wire differences.
The next datum to absorb is from an article of importance by Dr. Greg Comnes in issue 117 (April/May 1999) of "The Absolute Sound." In part this article discusses the limited usefulness of the Double Blind Test (DBT). It is interesting to note that the results from numbers of traditional clinical double blind trials of the three top antidepressant medicines, each trial lasting 4 to 6 weeks, showed that each drug provided patients relief from depression equally well, i.e. one did not work "better" than another.
However, the higher number of real world variables found in some other types of tests (not DBTs) have actually made them more important contributors to the "pharmacoeconomics" of treating patients efficiently. (An important factor in a multi-billion dollar industry.) In these tests it was found that patients were actually much more likely to remain on one antidepressant rather than another...one did work "better." A direct contradiction of the Double Blind Test results. The drug company�s conclusion was that while double blind tests are useful, they are hardly the last word--as many would have us believe. (See Mitchell, et al., "Effectiveness and Economic Impact of Antidepressant Medications: A Review," The American Journal of Managed Care Vol. 3, no. 2, February 1997.)
Now we can objectively discount one of the objectivist�s favorite tools (the double blind test) because it�s been discovered that its inherent and rigidly limited test conditions can produce incorrect results. (Have we been steered in the wrong direction? Have we had the gender wrong all this time? Hamburger anyone?)
That leaves us with our very first argument, �if I can�t hear it, it doesn�t exist,� to bounce around. Here are a few paragraphs from a book called "Waves and the Ear," (Bergeik, et al., "Science Study Series" from Doubleday, 1960, pages 102-103). They will establish one reason why Joe Schmoe can hear cable differences and Joe Blow can�t.
"We do not hear instantaneously. Somehow a complicated sound which is a sequence of spectral patterns succeeding one another Arings in our ears@ for a moment after we have heard it. It is during this moment that we can best imitate an unfamiliar sound. Of course, the sound does not truly ring in our ears; it is presumably stored momentarily in the brain B just how is not clear.
Most of our memories of sounds are of a different sort. They are not transient; they are permanent. We have stored in our heads a host of sound patterns. It is after these that we pattern our speech, and it is with the aid of these that we identify the words that we hear.
