The science of opinion ...

I was there for all of that.

The thing about it, is..that..if one actually follows the cutting edge of psychoacoustic research and cutting edge work in acoustics, re scientific articles at places like physorg..

...what one discovers, through doing the hard work of article and research reading and reference sifting...

That the bowls (originally by Franck Tchang) actually DO WORK. AS ADVERTISED.

But, it took years and years to emerge as part of the new knowledge base. It is still filtering and dripping in.

10 years from now, this will all filter down into the average bit of knowledge, for norms in psychoacoustics ,and the fields involved in acoustics. It will be in all the textbooks, to some given degree.

And the people who can't innovate and can only attack things as they are not in the textbooks (dogmatic mindset), those negative proofing mindsets...they’ll be busy attacking the next thing which they don’t understand, things that are emergent and not yet in the textbooks.

And be tossing around the those intellectual flyweight nickel level charlatan and snake oil screams like they were intellectual level manhole covers.

Since, in high end audio, the expectation is the the manufacturers do have the intellectual capacity to bring the new and cutting edge -into the world of audio... it is a given that the dogmatic mindset negative proofing types, they will attack relentlessly. Ad infinitum, as the history of it shows so abundantly.

@teo_audio  Do we have any examples of reformed "dogmatic mindset negative proofing types" and their redemption stories? Likely not to help, given the 'type,' but may make for interesting reading....

How to Clone a Pseudo Skeptic 🤨 🤨 🤨 🤨

1. Assume a condescending air that suggests your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of the science community.

2. Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific.

3. Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.

4. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to exclaim, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!"

5. Insist that the subject device is easily explained by conventional science so there’s no mystery there.

6. Since John Q Public doesn’t appreciate the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to obscure the difference.

7. Use the tried-and-true skeptics expression, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” as much as possible.

@teo_audio Do we have any examples of reformed "dogmatic mindset negative proofing types" and their redemption stories? Likely not to help, given the ’type,’ but may make for interesting reading....

Erik was smart enough from the get go, IMO, but I’ve noticed recently that he has decided to go more public with his thoughts and ideas on how intellectualism, discovery work, and exploration works - re some of the threads he has started.

I sensed he had it in him to do so..and he does...

Thus I find it is more of a internal psychological perception and perceptual base issue than anything else.

eg, in congruent fashion of illustration of the base required re shifting one’s self... never sign off a letter with ’take care’, but sign off with ’take risks’.

These sort of perceptual base shifts can’t happen over night and take years years (even decades) to execute. Slow boil, slow burn. It is the nature of the mind. Most that make it to this nebulous ’there’ point, have had things in their lives that seeded that coming condition of mind. Eg, stress and extremes can be very useful, in some critical or fundamental ways, when in the right life at the right time.

Thanks, @teo_audio   I meant in the greater human historical universe...I'm guessing here, but there are likely to be some luminary examples and they may even have written about their transformations / shifts....