Pear backs out of the cable challenge

WilliamM2

Just as I figured, Pear has decided not to have their cable tested against Monster:

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=27

cfrizz

Big surprise (NOT!) Someone throws down a put-up or shut-up challenge, & they decide to shut-up since they know they will lose!

Gaara

If we look at this from Fremer's perspective that cables do make a difference then I can understand why Pear backed out. Fremer doesn't know Pear cables as well as his own, so it would be difficult to compare to cables with which he is not familiar with.

I don't know why Pear was picked but Fremer should be able to compare his own cables with Monster cable, so long as he is willing to have them test for any abnormalities that would obviously cause a difference in sound.

I won't argue if there is a difference or not, but from Fremer's perspective this was a good move by Pear.

shack

So what? There was never anything in it for Pear. A total lose/lose situation. If Fremer successfully identifies the Pear cables...DUH...he is supposed to pick the high end cables to sound better. If not, Pear will hear nothing but "Monster as good as Pear". Pear would have been a total fool to participate...regardless of the outcome. If nothing else he has already gotten some free advertisement thanks to the JREF challenge, which was probably all he wanted anyway.

Again I reiterate...Randi is just a showman and is as full of "sleight of hand" as the people he accuses of fakery.

WilliamM2

If we look at this from Fremer's perspective that cables do make a difference then I can understand why Pear backed out. Fremer doesn't know Pear cables as well as his own, so it would be difficult to compare to cables with which he is not familiar with.

Why would he have to be familiar with them? Either they sound different, or they don't. He would have had plenty of time to listen to the cables before the test ever took place.

PolkThug

M* Cable rules!

shack

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Why would he have to be familiar with them? Either they sound different, or they don't. He would have had plenty of time to listen to the cables before the test ever took place.

Because he already KNOWS what his reference cables sound like. Now the test will be what DOESN'T sound like what he is familiar with. It makes perfect sense. Why shouldn't Fremer "negotiate" the parameters of the test rather than merely accept Randi's propositon?

WilliamM2

Why shouldn't Fremer "negotiate" the parameters of the test rather than merely accept Randi's propositon?

The challenge was for Pear cables. Randi did not aproach Fremer, he was going after Clark the guy who originally wrote a review of them. Fremer contacted Randi and accepted the challenge.

WilliamM2

More news:
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=2

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=2

shack

WilliamM2 wrote:

More news:

Don't you mean PR and/or propaganda? :rolleyes:

Since you took exception to my using Pear's press release as a news item...lets at least be consistent.

WilliamM2

Randi actually quotes the emails from the concerned parties. Not quite a press release.

shack

I'm not going to get into another "discussion" of this issue. I'll just restate one last time that IMO Randi has no interest in ever letting one of these "challenges" come to fruition. He is simply doing what he always does...making claims in a grandiose fashion with the perception that he is "backing it up" with a prize. This has nothing to do with cables (or whatever) but a case of a "pot calling the kettle black". I have little use for Randi or his foundation. I’ll not bore anyone with anymore opinions on the subject. I’m done.

WilliamM2

There is no discussion to have. Randi made a challenge, clearly stating which cables would be involved. Randi never changed that challenge. Pear and Fremer accept. Pear and Fremer back out.

heiney9

shack wrote: »

I’ll not bore anyone with anymore opinions on the subject. I’m done.

Actually shack, I don't find your opinions boring at all.

jdhdiggs

William:

I was going through some of Randi's links to webpages and the following explains the uphill battle on these topics. I found it enlightening:

Spurious Relationships and the Belief Engine
What need paranormal occurences satisfy, and how they can be presented as truth.
"Faulty logic" describes how we perceive what we are told as truth, even if it is not. One type of faulty logic that is frequently taken advantage of by paranormal investigators is "Spurious Relationships". Spurious relationships are when two events are said to be linked, but without logical reasoning. For example, if I am standing in a supposedly haunted house holding a digital camcorder in one hand, and I see a humanoid form pass in front of the camera, I might wrongly assume that this is evidence proving the haunting. What I am not taking into account are the other people in the facility, camera malfunctions, and animals. While I may seem to attempt to debunk the evidence that my camera has gathered, I ignore the probable explanation of fraud in order to make a better case for the footage. When something is deemed paranormal ONLY because the person there says it is, the evidence should automatically be thrown out. For example, if one of my crew passed in front of that camera, and I know it, obviously I'm not going to say so on television and ruin the credibility of my group. And yet it remains possible that the figure picked up on the camera is nothing more than a person. The only evidence the viewers have of a paranormal experience is the word of the investigator.

So why do we believe paranormal investigators without question? Well, some seem to actually attempt to debunk hauntings. This is a calculated move to win our trust. But the main reason we are so apt to believe in the paranormal at all has to do with something called "The Belief Engine". The Belief Engine is a model for how we construct our beliefs, and what evidence we use to create them.

The first segment of the Belief Engine is the Learning Unit.

The Learning Unit has its basis in our pasts. It exists to keep us from making the same mistakes over again. An example would be our desire, as children, to pet stray dogs. All it will take to free us from this dangerous habit is one time when the dog bites. Now we have learned - strange dogs are not to be trusted.

The next segment is called the Critical Thinking Unit. This can only be acquired through experience and education. We are taught to think of things properly, to throw out faulty logic and false evidence. We do not know to do this from day one. This is one possible reason that paranormal experiences are more commonly reported in children - from strange imaginary friends to seeing monsters in the closet. Experience has not taught children that these things are not possible. While this gives the believers ammo to say that children are more "open" and "aware", when looking at it critically, we know this to be false. Children haven't lived long enough to understand situations completely, or to relate them with a high degree of accuracy.

The Yearning Unit of the Belief Engine is the most pertinent in our look at paranormal investigators. We tend to find more evidence for what we want to believe than what is actually true. Our desires override observable evidence, which might be why there has never been a shred of true evidence of the supernatural. This segment also works off the assumption that all beliefs are designed for one common purpose - to stop anxiety.

The Input Unit describes how we perceive raw informational data. We do not have a direct feed to the world that we can remember perfectly, or access any time we wish to. The information that we choose to retain is biased toward our own beliefs. We may choose to remember a ghostly figure in front of the camera, but choose to forget that the silhouette looks very similar to the silhouette of one of the investigators. If it does not fit with our preconceived notions about the world, we are likely to throw information away.

Experiences, as outlined in the Emotional Response Unit, are colored by how they make us feel. If an event leaves a strong emotion, it may override critical, objective analysis. Back to the figure in front of the camera. If seeing it sparks a feeling of elation tempered with fear (because my initial response is to believe that the figure is supernatural) then I am less likely to objectively review the evidence.

The next unit has to do with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is a favorite for paranormal investigators and believers alike. Anecdotal evidence is using an experience of your own to say that something must be true, rather than actual information or evidence that is impossible to alter. In the Memory Unit, we learn that the memory is far from infallible. It is, however, incredibly difficult to reject one's own memory of an event. We don't intentionally forget what really happened - the memory is just colored by our experiences and the framework of our beliefs. Paranormal investigators sometimes say that skeptics will remain skeptics and believers will remain believers. The reason that's true? The Belief Engine. We are constructed to believe what we have always believed.

In the Environmental Feedback Unit, it is suggested that we compare our own experiences with others who were there without forcing our own beliefs on them. For this, it is good to have people of different beliefs along with you. If you have a group of believers, then they will all stand around saying how supernatural an experience was, whereas if you brought a skeptic, you would be more likely to hear an alternate version of events.

Also, no matter how much skepticism a paranormal investigation group may claim to have, all of them are going out on the assumption that there is paranormal activity SOMEWHERE. It would be interesting to see one of these shows take along a true skeptic - ie: someone who doesn't believe AT ALL and see what evidence was found then.

Granted it talks about the paranormal but the psychology applies to any controversial topic.

WilliamM2

jdhdiggs wrote: »

William:

I was going through some of Randi's links to webpages and the following explains the uphill battle on these topics. I found it enlightening:



Granted it talks about the paranormal but the psychology applies to any controversial topic.

Sums it up very well. Especially this part:

Anecdotal evidence is a favorite for paranormal investigators and believers alike. Anecdotal evidence is using an experience of your own to say that something must be true, rather than actual information or evidence that is impossible to alter. In the Memory Unit, we learn that the memory is far from infallible. It is, however, incredibly difficult to reject one's own memory of an event. We don't intentionally forget what really happened - the memory is just colored by our experiences and the framework of our beliefs.

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Sums it up very well. Especially this part:

The same concepts can influence those that think they don't hear a difference also, so what's your point?

It is pretty sad that we are comparing a cable discussion with discussion about paranormal activities. Last time I checked the 2 weren't related in any context.

Lowell_M

WilliamM2 wrote: »

There is no discussion to have. Randi made a challenge, clearly stating which cables would be involved. Randi never changed that challenge. Pear and Fremer accept. Pear and Fremer back out.

Are you married to this Randi guy or something? Why are you such an extreme follower of this nutjob?

Are we going to have to drink red coolaid when this conversation is over or anything like that?

heiney9

a_mattison wrote: »

Are you married to this Randi guy or something? Why are you such an extreme follower of this nutjob?

Are we going to have to drink red coolaid when this conversation is over or anything like that?

No, he will only believe there is a difference in cables if someone like Randi "the amazing" tells him so. Nutjob, extreme, nah :rolleyes:

And we've resorted to quoting things from paranormal discussions.

H9

jdhdiggs

heiney9 wrote: »

The same concepts can influence those that think they don't hear a difference also,

And who came up with that first on this board?!?!

WilliamM2

No, he will only believe there is a difference in cables if someone like Randi "the amazing" tells him so. Nutjob, extreme, nah

I'll believe there is a difference if anybody can demonstrate it. Nothing to do with Randi.

It funny how you believers have absolutely no evidence to back your claims, and have to resort to insults, because you have nothing else.

heiney9

jdhdiggs wrote: »

And who came up with that first on this board?!?!

You did see post #15

H9

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I'll believe there is a difference if anybody can demonstrate it. Nothing to do with Randi.

You personally have already said YOU don't hear a difference so why does someone have to tell you there is a difference? You still won't hear a difference (by your own admission) so I don't get what your point is.

I personally have never told anyone who doesn't hear a difference that they are wrong or deluded or whatever other adjective you want to use. They tried it out and they didn't hear a difference, great.

I do hear a difference and I will personally keep swapping cables until I'm satisified with those differences. I have no vested interest in making you believe what I hear. The only person it matters to is ME. I'm satisfied, hopefully someday you will satisfied too, but it's not up to me or ANYONE else to make you a believer, you have to do that for yourself.

H9

Ricardo

William, I've stayed out of these cable discussions because I know they can get nasty. I particularly have heard differences between IC's and speaker cables, but honestly I cannot guarantee I could demonstrate it through a controlled test. You know what? I don't care really. What metters to me is that I heard the differences, or at least I think I did, and that's enough to pick one cable over another. Maybe I even posted somewhere that cables do make a difference, I don't know, but I don't go against people that have not heard any difference.
You say you have not heard any differerences and that's fine, but what I don't understand is why you must keep coming back asking people to demonstrate to you that there are actually differences. Why not just stay happy with your decision, and leave others happy with theirs? I think there's enough roughness in the forum as to keep these cable wars alive.

Just my POV.

shack

WilliamM2 wrote:

It funny how you believers have absolutely no evidence to back your claims, and have to resort to insults, because you have nothing else.

Don't paint with such a broad brush. I have never insulted anyone on this board in regards to cables...much less you. I have offered my experience to take or leave and for that effort I constantly get the PROVE IT, PROVE IT, PROVE IT rhetoric. Thank you for classifying my experience as "nothing else".

WilliamM2

You personally have already said YOU don't hear a difference so why does someone have to tell you there is a difference? You still won't hear a difference (by your own admission) so I don't get what your point is.

Point? I've seen a lot of newbies ask advice on cable in the forum over the last couple of years. Then they get recommendations to waste money on expensive cables. If there is no difference, they would be better off spending that money on better equipment.

WilliamM2

Why not just stay happy with your decision, and leave others happy with theirs?

See the post above. It's even worse when you have a reviewer like Fremer, making recommendations to thousands and thousands of readers based on the differences he claims to heae. Of course when it comes time to back those claims up, he folds.

And this didn't start out as a cable debate thread. There was a long discusion here on the challenge, I was just linking to the latest news.

shack

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Point? I've seen a lot of newbies ask advice on cable in the forum over the last couple of years. Then they get recommendations to waste money on expensive cables. If there is no difference, they would be better off spending that money on better equipment.

An opinion only. Most of the cable advocates on this forum simply tell the questioners to "try it themselves...then decide". Your advice is to "take my word for it".

Ricardo

That's fine; have at it.

Lowell_M

shack wrote: »

Don't paint with such a broad brush. I have never insulted anyone on this board in regards to cables...much less you. I have offered my experience to take or leave and for that effort I constantly get the PROVE IT, PROVE IT, PROVE IT rhetoric. Thank you for classifying my experience as "nothing else".

I could be considered the insulter in this instance and I didn't say a word about cables mattering. I just don't understand why he is so passionate about this Randi guy's opinions.

I have heard the difference in cables and used to be a non-believer. The only reason I installed better calbes was because they were free to me, but I'll tell you...I can hear a difference. Are my ears trained enough to distiguish brands? No... But they can tell the difference between a $10 big box cable and a $90 cable. big deal... It's part of the hobby. Why does he get so upset by all of it?

Lowell_M

shack wrote: »

An opinion only. Most of the cable advocates on this forum simply tell the questioners to "try it themselves...then decide". Your advice is to "take my word for it".

+1.....