OK Richard. I have been reminded of the rules by your earlier post, for which I thank you. I did not actually think that stating that I regard what somebody had said to be foolish was making a judgement on that person. Only on what they were saying. But my apologies to all concerned if they feel I have judged them - that was not my intention.
I am puzzled though that it seems to be fine that people are permitted to say that I have imagined things that I’ve heard. That feels very much to me like being judged.
Very eloquently put indeed and I can only agree with you.
My beef comes not with the people whose beliefs differ from mine, but with the people who try to convince me that I have not heard what I have heard. Also with the people who claim that there is no scientific mechanism that can possibly explain the phenomenon of burn in and that there is ‘scientific proof’ that burn in does not exist. These assertions are not matters for debate, they are simply wrong.
So can you explain the meaning of mistaken assertions, in your quote below
The comments that Fatcat has made above are an excellent example of the sort of instances where non-scientists attempt to erroneously invoke what they regard as the power and authority of science in order to support their mistaken assertions.
And vice versa, though I have the impression that far more scorn is heaped on those who do not believe by those who believe than the other way round. Those who are not believers mainly seem to identify other plausible reasons for people to believe they hear burn-in with cables, such as well known psychological influences (that is not in any way heaping scorn or criticising).
No. I can only speak for myself when I say that I have never disagreed with anybody’s else’s experiences, nor have I ever criticised anybody for not hearing burn in. I can see very little evidence of this from anyone else either.
And one knows that these reasons are plausible - how exactly?
You keep the debate going PJL but surely you’ve realised by now that the naysayers on this subject aren’t going to accept your view. I revert back to my previous post where I wrote “ how many 500 level system owners who listen to music regularly don’t believe in the phenomena of burn in?”. By the way the Naim Ambassador and one of the top current R@D guys at Naim plus Roy George all accept that it is a reality .
Your first comment, although factually correct, contains the remark “(even though you are a scientist)”. This remark implies that you believe that being a scientist means that I should be able to provide a scientific reason for experiencing and believing in cable burn in. This is a mistaken assertion and is evidential of a lack of scientific understanding.
Your second comment contains the remark “the people who have scientific arguments that prove burn in doesn’t exist”. The use of the word “prove” here demonstrates that you believe that such proof exists. This is a mistaken assertion and again is evidential of a lack of scientific understanding.
Indeed yes. And I don’t have the slightest interest in making them accept it. I only object to the naysayers telling me that I don’t know what I’m hearing myself and in saying things that are not true, such as 'there are no scientific reasons to support the existence of burn-in.
I literally have no interest in convincing them of anything other than to stick to the facts.
You might not have criticised people for not hearing, but I didn’t say anything about non-hearers (though of course the term non-believers doesn not exclude non-hearers).
Erm, because psychological influences such as bias arising for a variety of reasons can affect anybody, and even when aware of causes of bias it can be very hard to be certain one is not affected without taking steps to prevent. And because mood / state of mind is widely stated to affect perception of music, at least within this forum? And because physiological influences causing variation in hearing are real?