Well Tony - Steve appears to have leaped off that fence.

[jneutron]

Do you have any of this cable left? You could measure how much it streches in your construction scheme and correlate?

Nope, none left..new build in progress.

If the protocol is unreliable, the number of listeners is irrelevant. It is unreliable for even one listener. I may be dense or something, I just don't see that because you are not testing a sample population that you can get away with an unrelable protocol.
Maybe he would get the exact same results; or maybe nothing there from the beginning.

The fact that existing protocols, ones that are supposedly reliable, have found no diff means one of two things..nothing is there, or the test is not sensitive to the entity sought..

Are you asking me to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat.... some test that has not found the entity? That sounds like fun..:-) You are, in fact, asking me to waste my time attempting to duplicate something that hasn't borne fruit with absolutely no experince in DBT testing.

I clearly state: some extremely good researchers have gotten zero results...why would I expect different?

You would have asked Nordmark the same thing...

he provided impressional detail I would not have been able to.

Yes, that is so but is it real? Is it reliable? Or, he is just practiced to give such details regardless of real sonic qualities or just perceived ones that the brain played out? We don't know with his protocol. .

The virtual images we perceive when listening to stereo are not real..and yes, your observations are valid..

Didn't he (Nordmark)use DBT listening protocol? Special test signals? As he was looking for threshold information which is fine..

Where in the name of sam hill did he come up with jitter as the independent variable???

Prior to his work, there were no real methods to quantify jitter w/r to audio lateralization..so why did he do it??? Prior to him, time based lateralization above 1.5 Khz was a waste of time...DBT's proved it...so, what changed???serendipity?

My goal is to find what the electrical difference is at the speaker via subtraction...understand what those differences do to the virtual image, and once clearly understood, then a valid DBT can be designed, with a clear definition of what it is that is being tested..simply substituting wires and saying"is there a diff" is far too inexact for my desires..I am focussing far deeper than that.

I understand where you are going with your experiment and it is great that you are doing it and that you want to increment one parameters so carefully as it should be. I just don't see how his listening protocol can give you a base line?.

He provided a pointer to the parameters that are being affected...lateralization parameters as well as lateralization jitter....entities which will affect the position in space of the virtual image, and clues that depth of that vitrual image are changing..which indicates to me, at least, that timing issues may be what is changing w/r to wire differences.

Can you provide any research which details testing a stereo at the speakers, to rule out lateralization indicators, to the level of a microsecond? So far, I've come across none.. hell, I haven't found anyone who can reliably test to that level with equipment.

Because your wire design addresses ther low impedance, that is even more important for the listeing evaluation to have meaning, even with just one listener.
What happens when at the time you are ready to do DBT listeing, no one can hear anything different, reliably? Then you have to backtrack and see at what point differences disappear? Why not start with it and see at what poing differences disappear, if there are differences from the first test wire?.

What differences? please explain...if you use history as an indicator, there are none..so I might as well stop..

You are hung up on the DBT issue..

I will test the differences between what is at the amp binding posts, and what is at the speaker terminals..and, based on Ted's initial feedback, I can rule out frequency response issues, and magic entities like motor generator, piezo, grain boundaries, dielectric involvement....and concentrate on the entities that do most certainly affect the position and focus of the virtual image formed by our brain....lateralization delays..And, since that entails microsecond level entities, forms a basis for the resolution I will need to look for that.

Finding none means there is nothing there....(move along, citizens....)

Finding something means having a meaningful entity to use in the structuring of DBT's.

Attempting to DBT my cable at this point is random engineering...I will do so only after finding a realistic electrical difference.

I wish to test my assertion that my cable has no skinning inductive loss up to at least a megahertz..I designed it so to eliminate skinning as a factor, and to keep the inductance low..

By hos measurements?.

I assume you meant whose...and it is Gene..

No one knows right now if there are gost chasing or not. But wouldn't you rather know from the start if you have anything to investigate instead of backtracking later at what point it was gosthunting?.

You have missed my point..I AM looking for that entity to investigate...I am an electrical injuneer, and I am looking for an electrical entity.

I think you will have to do it eventually and see if his findings stand up to bias controlled listening and will these cables as they are currently designe will too?

Why would you think that?? It is an absolute fact..

You and I seem to differ in that you approach this from a "can you hear it direction", while I'm approaching it from an "is there something there to hear" point..

Both are perfectly valid approaches, and one cannot survive without the other. That is why, should I find a diff, I would take you up on your DBT offer..

Cheers, John

[pctower]

Nope, none left..new build in progress.



The fact that existing protocols, ones that are supposedly reliable, have found no diff means one of two things..nothing is there, or the test is not sensitive to the entity sought..

Are you asking me to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat.... some test that has not found the entity? That sounds like fun..:-) You are, in fact, asking me to waste my time attempting to duplicate something that hasn't borne fruit with absolutely no experince in DBT testing.

I clearly state: some extremely good researchers have gotten zero results...why would I expect different?

You would have asked Nordmark the same thing...

he provided impressional detail I would not have been able to.



The virtual images we perceive when listening to stereo are not real..and yes, your observations are valid..



Where in the name of sam hill did he come up with jitter as the independent variable???

Prior to his work, there were no real methods to quantify jitter w/r to audio lateralization..so why did he do it??? Prior to him, time based lateralization above 1.5 Khz was a waste of time...DBT's proved it...so, what changed???serendipity?

My goal is to find what the electrical difference is at the speaker via subtraction...understand what those differences do to the virtual image, and once clearly understood, then a valid DBT can be designed, with a clear definition of what it is that is being tested..simply substituting wires and saying"is there a diff" is far too inexact for my desires..I am focussing far deeper than that.



He provided a pointer to the parameters that are being affected...lateralization parameters as well as lateralization jitter....entities which will affect the position in space of the virtual image, and clues that depth of that vitrual image are changing..which indicates to me, at least, that timing issues may be what is changing w/r to wire differences.

Can you provide any research which details testing a stereo at the speakers, to rule out lateralization indicators, to the level of a microsecond? So far, I've come across none.. hell, I haven't found anyone who can reliably test to that level with equipment.




What differences? please explain...if you use history as an indicator, there are none..so I might as well stop..

You are hung up on the DBT issue..

I will test the differences between what is at the amp binding posts, and what is at the speaker terminals..and, based on Ted's initial feedback, I can rule out frequency response issues, and magic entities like motor generator, piezo, grain boundaries, dielectric involvement....and concentrate on the entities that do most certainly affect the position and focus of the virtual image formed by our brain....lateralization delays..And, since that entails microsecond level entities, forms a basis for the resolution I will need to look for that.

Finding none means there is nothing there....(move along, citizens....)

Finding something means having a meaningful entity to use in the structuring of DBT's.

Attempting to DBT my cable at this point is random engineering...I will do so only after finding a realistic electrical difference.

I wish to test my assertion that my cable has no skinning inductive loss up to at least a megahertz..I designed it so to eliminate skinning as a factor, and to keep the inductance low..




I assume you meant whose...and it is Gene..



You have missed my point..I AM looking for that entity to investigate...I am an electrical injuneer, and I am looking for an electrical entity.



Why would you think that?? It is an absolute fact..

You and I seem to differ in that you approach this from a "can you hear it direction", while I'm approaching it from an "is there something there to hear" point..

Both are perfectly valid approaches, and one cannot survive without the other. That is why, should I find a diff, I would take you up on your DBT offer..

Cheers, John

I will test the differences between what is at the amp binding posts, and what is at the speaker terminals..and, based on Ted's initial feedback, I can rule out frequency response issues, and magic entities like motor generator, piezo, grain boundaries, dielectric involvement....and concentrate on the entities that do most certainly affect the position and focus of the virtual image formed by our brain....lateralization delays.

John:

I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.

I assume you believe that Ted's detailed descriptions of differences he experiences is sufficient for your work at this time - that because he can be so specific you are, for the time being, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as one aide to guide your research.

If you ultimately come up with something you think is significant, then would be the time for more rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing.

If I correctly understand the difference you have with mtry it seems to me that mtry is primarily concerned about the possibility you might be wasting your time because of his rigid insistence on DBT at each stage of a research project, whereas you are willing unwilling to be shackled by DBTs at the early stages of your research (and instead rely upon Ted's detailed descriptions which you think might be valid).

Controlled testing is obviously important at certain stages of research, but it seems to me that the way some people here want to apply it encourages the Tyrany of the DBT at the expense of possible progress.

Does any of this make any sense?

Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.

Don't mean to leave you out, mtry. In the words of Bill O'Rielly, what say you?

[jneutron]

John:
I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.

Mtry is correct...Ted's feedback may be absolutely correct, but no metrics to prove that assertion have been demonstrated..so, the reliability of that feedback has not been established...

I assume you believe that Ted's detailed descriptions of differences he experiences is sufficient for your work at this time - that because he can be so specific you are, for the time being, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as one aide to guide your research.
If you ultimately come up with something you think is significant, then would be the time for more rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing.
If I correctly understand the difference you have with mtry it seems to me that mtry is primarily concerned about the possibility you might be wasting your time because of his rigid insistence on DBT at each stage of a research project, whereas you are willing unwilling to be shackled by DBTs at the early stages of your research (and instead rely upon Ted's detailed descriptions which you think might be valid).

Controlled testing is obviously important at certain stages of research, but it seems to me that the way some people here want to apply it encourages the Tyrany of the DBT at the expense of possible progress.

Does any of this make any sense?

100 percent..especially the "rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing" part..I do not have experience in DBT, and none of the DBT professionals know how to test lateralization fuzzing of image localization/depth perceptions vs cable energy release mechanisms. (for lack of a better description of what I am looking at).

Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.

In the end, that is what will be used as the final nail..I may find ele diffs, but it will be necessary to use DBT to determine the validity of a cause/effect.

My initial foray with Ted gives me a clearer focus on what it is I can concentrate on..

Cheers, John

[mtrycraft]

My initial foray with Ted gives me a clearer focus on what it is I can concentrate on..

Cheers, John

If I understand all this better, clearer ,
now you will measure the cable to see if you have something that would be a logical correlation to his descriptions?

I am really trying to understand and be clear in my small mind

[jneutron]

If I understand all this better, clearer ,
now you will measure the cable to see if you have something that would be a logical correlation to his descriptions?

Absolutely.

Nothing in his description sounds like any kind of frequency response amplitude anomoly.

So, the most logical thing to look at would be time based things. Lord knows, simple FR and distortion has been beaten to death, to I look to lateralization.

They keep talking about how silver is brighter, yada yada..you know the things they attribute to wires..but, when push comes to shove, a "brighter" wire doesn't have a frequency response difference that shows in test...I'm really wondering if by "brighter", they are actually describing a virtual image that has all the frequency components localizing to the same point...hmmm, I don't think I'm describing it well at all...

When I use my eq to dial my system when I'm standing in front of it in my living room, I tweak, listen, tweak, listen...but, my eq is godawful crap....there's no way in heck I'm gonna set both channels identically...so a singer's voice, when I close my eyes, is right there in front of me, but something's weird...the sibilance is not at the exact same place the rest of her voice is..it's just to the right of the rest of her voice.. If I could set the knobs just right, I could get that sibilance exactly where she is...then maybe it'll sound "brighter"??? Who knows..

But, if an event "happens", and we judge it's location by r-l time diff, and part of that event spectra is delayed a bit more (like a coupla microseconds), what do we see in the image? Farther away, closer, no change? A washboard and sax have different spectra..if the different freq components are delayed differently, what does that do to the image?

That's basically why I'm looking for the delays..nice, ele test.. If it can be shown that the delay garbage can change the image as described, then we can correlate some cable parameters to listening, and then do some real listening tests, knowing what independent variable to change, and what effect to look for.

OH...here's a graph I did coupla days ago..it is the energy storage of a wire vs it's characteristic impedance, while feeding an 8 ohm load. As can be seen, as the inductance of the cable goes up, so does the energy storage..and as inductance goes up, capacitance goes down, following the L*C=1031 * DC equation. What really startled me is that the total energy that is stored in the cable is a minimum when the cable impedance is equal to the load impedance...Logical, in hindsight, but nonetheless, unexpected. So, for cable impedances above the load's, the storage is inductive, while for z below the load, it is capacitive.



Cheers, John

[mtrycraft]

Thanks
The ink wasn't even dry yet

[mtrycraft]

the DC resistance of the braid.
If you measure the overall DC resistance before you cut it apart and make your new cable, if you don't cut any off but use its full length after streaching, will the overall resistance change as you didn't deform the strands just the shape of the braid? If no change, that would give us an equivalent gauge number?

[jneutron]

the DC resistance of the braid.
If you measure the overall DC resistance before you cut it apart and make your new cable, if you don't cut any off but use its full length after streaching, will the overall resistance change as you didn't deform the strands just the shape of the braid? If no change, that would give us an equivalent gauge number?

When are you gonna stop beating me over the head with this resistance crap...

I told you time and time again.....I FORGOT TO MEASURE THE DAMN THING. I got so worried about L and C, I just plain forgot R...

I have no clue how much braid I used, how tight I stretched it, nothing...and I don't even have a piece of the cable left to measure....

Geeeeeeeeze...can't a guy make a mistake now and then????Boy....you'd think I was supposed to be scientific, or sumptin....

Cheers, John (where'd I put that tape measure) E..

PS...for the next run, I'm just gonna mark the braid on the mike cable every foot, as I still don't know how many feet of braid I need for every foot of double coax...what a pain...but I think that it's resistance will remain the same from one mark to the next regardless of how it has been elongated or reduced..

I'm even starting to figure out how to build a braider, as it gets very tough finding different size braids..might as well make my own with stock bare magnet wire....and as a bonus, I can cover my 100 foot snake cable with braided nylon to make it look pretty..that tube braid stuff is expensive...course, I could always send it to a braiding house..

[mtrycraft]

When are you gonna stop beating me over the head with this resistance crap...

I told you time and time again.....I FORGOT TO MEASURE THE DAMN THING. I got so worried about L and C, I just plain forgot R...

I have no clue how much braid I used, how tight I stretched it, nothing...and I don't even have a piece of the cable left to measure....

Geeeeeeeeze...can't a guy make a mistake now and then????Boy....you'd think I was supposed to be scientific, or sumptin....

Cheers, John (where'd I put that tape measure) E..

PS...for the next run, I'm just gonna mark the braid on the mike cable every foot, as I still don't know how many feet of braid I need for every foot of double coax...what a pain...but I think that it's resistance will remain the same from one mark to the next regardless of how it has been elongated or reduced..

I'm even starting to figure out how to build a braider, as it gets very tough finding different size braids..might as well make my own with stock bare magnet wire....and as a bonus, I can cover my 100 foot snake cable with braided nylon to make it look pretty..that tube braid stuff is expensive...course, I could always send it to a braiding house..

I am not beating you over the head. I am asking a general question about braid resistance. Is my presumption correct that th eoverall resistance will not change if the original lenght is not cut? If I measure before streching and after, no cutting of wire, resistance be the same?

[jneutron]

I am not beating you over the head. I am asking a general question about braid resistance. Is my presumption correct that th eoverall resistance will not change if the original lenght is not cut? If I measure before streching and after, no cutting of wire, resistance be the same?

Ummmm, Mtry? It was a tongue in cheek post...:-) (yah, I know... keep my day job...)

And I think you are correct...resistance should be the same...

OH, and lest you think otherwise, I respect your views...we may not see eye to eye on the cart vs donkey thing, but that is a trivially small thing....

As for the house of cards falling around me should I eventually do a DBT to find nuttin...that's ok...as I say, I already have a day job...this stuff...is fun.

Cheers, and thanks...John

[mtrycraft]

I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.

Yes, that is my hangup. Ted may be absolutely correct, or he may not be at all in his perception. I have no idea.



If you ultimately come up with something you think is significant, then would be the time for more rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing.

I could follow that no problem.

If I correctly understand the difference you have with mtry it seems to me that mtry is primarily concerned about the possibility you might be wasting your time because of his rigid insistence on DBT at each stage of a research project, whereas you are willing unwilling to be shackled by DBTs at the early stages of your research (and instead rely upon Ted's detailed descriptions which you think might be valid).

Only if the early stage is a foundation, a building block to the next level. The way I see it is that if the foundation is questionable, then what? Or, if at a later stage when you bring in reliable controls that does not support the premis, I would think you'd have to backtrack, step at a time, to see if it is questionable all the way back to the foundation or some other step afterwards.

I suppose you can do it in this order.

Controlled testing is obviously important at certain stages of research, but it seems to me that the way some people here want to apply it encourages the Tyrany of the DBT at the expense of possible progress.

I don't think so. If you need that level of control at some stages of research, what happens when at those stages it doesn't support the work? Do you say that the previous work is validated but not the last step? Or, is only the last step needs validation? And if it is not validated, all steps leading up to it are invalidated? I would think a lot of work for nothing then. Or, am I just not seeing the trees from the forest?



Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.

I don't think I have a problem setting it aside for moments at all. Just questioning, so I can understand, what happens with the information gained during those set aside periods. If in the end, all information will be properly validated, then I cannot really object as a different researcher is taking a different path but in the end, the research will follow proper protocols. Maybe that is my hangup, waiting to the end if it stands or fails instead of each step standing or falling down.

But, I am not a signatory to the experiment so I don't really count

Don't mean to leave you out, mtry. In the words of Bill O'Rielly, what say you?

Naw, you never leave me out

[pctower]

I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.

Yes, that is my hangup. Ted may be absolutely correct, or he may not be at all in his perception. I have no idea.



If you ultimately come up with something you think is significant, then would be the time for more rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing.

I could follow that no problem.

If I correctly understand the difference you have with mtry it seems to me that mtry is primarily concerned about the possibility you might be wasting your time because of his rigid insistence on DBT at each stage of a research project, whereas you are willing unwilling to be shackled by DBTs at the early stages of your research (and instead rely upon Ted's detailed descriptions which you think might be valid).

Only if the early stage is a foundation, a building block to the next level. The way I see it is that if the foundation is questionable, then what? Or, if at a later stage when you bring in reliable controls that does not support the premis, I would think you'd have to backtrack, step at a time, to see if it is questionable all the way back to the foundation or some other step afterwards.

I suppose you can do it in this order.

Controlled testing is obviously important at certain stages of research, but it seems to me that the way some people here want to apply it encourages the Tyrany of the DBT at the expense of possible progress.

I don't think so. If you need that level of control at some stages of research, what happens when at those stages it doesn't support the work? Do you say that the previous work is validated but not the last step? Or, is only the last step needs validation? And if it is not validated, all steps leading up to it are invalidated? I would think a lot of work for nothing then. Or, am I just not seeing the trees from the forest?



Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.

I don't think I have a problem setting it aside for moments at all. Just questioning, so I can understand, what happens with the information gained during those set aside periods. If in the end, all information will be properly validated, then I cannot really object as a different researcher is taking a different path but in the end, the research will follow proper protocols. Maybe that is my hangup, waiting to the end if it stands or fails instead of each step standing or falling down.

But, I am not a signatory to the experiment so I don't really count

Don't mean to leave you out, mtry. In the words of Bill O'Rielly, what say you?

Naw, you never leave me out

If you need that level of control at some stages of research, what happens when at those stages it doesn't support the work? Do you say that the previous work is validated but not the last step? Or, is only the last step needs validation? And if it is not validated, all steps leading up to it are invalidated? I would think a lot of work for nothing then. Or, am I just not seeing the trees from the forest?

All good questions. That's the point where science may take on aspect of art. Intuition and discretion may come into play. The scientist must decide if he is willing to rely upon the results of the control test and give up proceeding in that particular direction. If he is uncertain as to whether the test is really reliable, he has to decide whether he'll trust it and give up that particular quest and run the risk of not discovering something that might have turned up down the road, or decide that the test results might not be wholly reliable and therefore proceed on which runs the risk of wasting a lot of time.

Despite all appearances to the contrary, scientists are people too and therefore each will respond and decide in his own particular way I suspect.

I don't think I have a problem setting it aside for moments at all. Just questioning, so I can understand, what happens with the information gained during those set aside periods. If in the end, all information will be properly validated, then I cannot really object as a different researcher is taking a different path but in the end, the research will follow proper protocols. Maybe that is my hangup, waiting to the end if it stands or fails instead of each step standing or falling down.

I think you have framed the issue very well. And I don't think you have a "hangup". You just have your own way of approaching something. Your intuition I suspect tells you that all who seek what jneutron is seeking are just wasting their time and you yourself might choose to spend your time in ways that you find more productive.

Nothing wrong with that. If we all followed the same path, we would sacrifice the great potential that comes from millions of humans following many different paths.

Where I suspect you, jneutron and I would converge in our paths (assuming I was a scientist too) is that in the end we would demand good, extensive control empirical testing to support any claim we were prepared to make based on the particular path we each may have choosen to get to the end result.

[okiemax]

If you need that level of control at some stages of research, what happens when at those stages it doesn't support the work? Do you say that the previous work is validated but not the last step? Or, is only the last step needs validation? And if it is not validated, all steps leading up to it are invalidated? I would think a lot of work for nothing then. Or, am I just not seeing the trees from the forest?

All good questions. That's the point where science may take on aspect of art. Intuition and discretion may come into play. The scientist must decide if he is willing to rely upon the results of the control test and give up proceeding in that particular direction. If he is uncertain as to whether the test is really reliable, he has to decide whether he'll trust it and give up that particular quest and run the risk of not discovering something that might have turned up down the road, or decide that the test results might not be wholly reliable and therefore proceed on which runs the risk of wasting a lot of time.

Despite all appearances to the contrary, scientists are people too and therefore each will respond and decide in his own particular way I suspect.

I don't think I have a problem setting it aside for moments at all. Just questioning, so I can understand, what happens with the information gained during those set aside periods. If in the end, all information will be properly validated, then I cannot really object as a different researcher is taking a different path but in the end, the research will follow proper protocols. Maybe that is my hangup, waiting to the end if it stands or fails instead of each step standing or falling down.

I think you have framed the issue very well. And I don't think you have a "hangup". You just have your own way of approaching something. Your intuition I suspect tells you that all who seek what jneutron is seeking are just wasting their time and you yourself might choose to spend your time in ways that you find more productive.

Nothing wrong with that. If we all followed the same path, we would sacrifice the great potential that comes from millions of humans following many different paths.

Where I suspect you, jneutron and I would converge in our paths (assuming I was a scientist too) is that in the end we would demand good, extensive control empirical testing to support any claim we were prepared to make based on the particular path we each may have choosen to get to the end result.

Yep, there are scientific methods(plural), not just a scientific method.

[pctower]

Yep, there are scientific methods(plural), not just a scientific method.

I respectfully disagree. There are four basic steps to the scientific method:

1. Observe something.

2. Come up with an explanation (an hypothesis) to explain what you observed.

3. Use this explanation to predict new things you would see if the explanation is correct.

4. Put the explanation to the test by finding out if the things you predict will actually occur (through empirical testing).

You can wander in and out of those steps, as I tried to describe in my prior post. But sooner or latter you've got to pass the ultimate test - you must make it past step 4.

See:

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html

and

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...00000000000000

[okiemax]

I respectfully disagree. There are four basic steps to the scientific method:

1. Observe something.

2. Come up with an explanation (an hypothesis) to explain what you observed.

3. Use this explanation to predict new things you would see if the explanation is correct.

4. Put the explanation to the test by finding out if the things you predict will actually occur (through empirical testing).

You can wander in and out of those steps, as I tried to describe in my prior post. But sooner or latter you've got to pass the ultimate test - you must make it past step 4.

See:

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html

and

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...00000000000000

Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading. It ain't necessarily the way things happen, which may be what you mean by "wander in and out." According to William McComas, in his Ten Myths of Science , many pre-college texts are getting away from this list of steps approach in favor of discussions of methods of science:


"Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists


The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.


One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.


Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.


Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=pctower
Where I suspect you, jneutron and I would converge in our paths (assuming I was a scientist too) is that in the end we would demand good, extensive control empirical testing to support any claim we were prepared to make based on the particular path we each may have choosen to get to the end result.[/QUOTE]

We may, face to face, could understand better each approach and come to the conclusion
that all three would be acceptable, certainly in the end