[转贴] 理性认知 踢爆音响界的伪科学

aaron

任何实践可以用来证伪应该没有人反对吧，不过无论是科学实践还是跳大绳的实践是不是可以用来证实真理呢？我认为不可以。yxiao 你认为呢？

aaron

交易区新帖推荐

Truth, a concept in philosophy that treats both the meaning of the word true and the criteria by which we judge the truth or falsity in spoken and written statements. Philosophers have attempted to answer the question “What is truth?” for thousands of years. The four main theories they have proposed to answer this question are the correspondence, pragmatic, coherence, and deflationary theories of truth.

One of the earliest versions of the correspondence theory was put forward in the 4th century bc by the Greek philosopher Plato, who sought to understand the meaning of knowledge and how it is acquired. Plato wished to distinguish between true belief and false belief. He proposed a theory based on intuitive recognition that true statements correspond to the facts—that is, agree with reality—while false statements do not. In Plato’s example, the sentence “Theaetetus flies” can be true only if the world contains the fact that Theaetetus flies. However, Plato—and much later, 20th-century British philosopher Bertrand Russell—recognized this theory as unsatisfactory because it did not allow for false belief. Both Plato and Russell reasoned that if a belief is false because there is no fact to which it corresponds, it would then be a belief about nothing and so not a belief at all. Each then speculated that the grammar of a sentence could offer a way around this problem. A sentence can be about something (the person Theaetetus), yet false (flying is not true of Theaetetus). But how, they asked, are the parts of a sentence related to reality? One suggestion, proposed by 20th-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, is that the parts of a sentence relate to the objects they describe in much the same way that the parts of a picture relate to the objects pictured. Once again, however, false sentences pose a problem: If a false sentence pictures nothing, there can be no meaning in the sentence.

In the late 19th-century American philosopher Charles S. Peirce offered another answer to the question “What is truth?” He asserted that truth is that which experts will agree upon when their investigations are final. Many pragmatists such as Peirce claim that the truth of our ideas must be tested through practice. Some pragmatists have gone so far as to question the usefulness of the idea of truth, arguing that in evaluating our beliefs we should rather pay attention to the consequences that our beliefs may have. However, critics of the pragmatic theory are concerned that we would have no knowledge because we do not know which set of beliefs will ultimately be agreed upon; nor are there sets of beliefs that are useful in every context.

A third theory of truth, the coherence theory, also concerns the meaning of knowledge. Coherence theorists have claimed that a set of beliefs is true if the beliefs are comprehensive—that is, they cover everything—and do not contradict each other.

Other philosophers dismiss the question “What is truth?” with the observation that attaching the claim “it is true that” to a sentence adds no meaning. However, these theorists, who have proposed what are known as deflationary theories of truth, do not dismiss such talk about truth as useless. They agree that there are contexts in which a sentence such as “it is true that the book is blue” can have a different impact than the shorter statement “the book is blue.” More importantly, use of the word true is essential when making a general claim about everything, nothing, or something, as in the statement “most of what he says is true.”


Contributed By:
Dorothy Grover
related articles


beliefs of religious groups and denominations
denial of objective truth
gods and goddesses
methods of finding
nature of truth
scientific vs. religious truths
44 items
web center
U Find the best online information about Truth.
Encarta Online Search
Current Events Search
Periodicals Search
General Web Search
more...

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

有好心人翻译一下咯。

yxiao

随便找了本书，真有兴趣的话不妨看看。不过作者对“归纳论”的理解显然简单化、公式化了。
http://shc.jdjd.cn/kxjj/mulu.htm

不过这种问题很没有什么意思，反正我没有深入研究的兴趣。

回到你的问题，实践如果不能证实“真理”，那还有什么东西能作到呢？

aaron

我也没兴趣研究，不可能有结果的。
个人信仰问题，青菜萝卜各有所爱，有人认为6N的铜线和8N的听不出区别，有人认为99.9999...%正确的真理和100%正确的真理也没有不同。

violin

最初由 yxiao 发表
[B]相对……真实？

相对真实的……事实？

不懂…… [/B]

知道盲人摸象的典故吗？

yulihua

交易区新帖推荐

蓝调----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
谁见过能给前级（或CD）负反馈的后级功放（或合并功放）？
——————————————————————————
我指攻放内的前级放大器。别谈哲学了，说不清楚的，谈技术好不好？

yulihua

围绕线材问题一直争论不休。从理论上讲似乎在音频范围内应该影响不大。但我们应该记得，在谈到放大器的上升速度时，要求放大器的频响高达9-11Mhz, 多数放大器具有大环路深度负反馈。三级以上的环路就有可能在某些频点上变成正反馈可能引起自激（kb>1)。这些放大器内设计有精细的补偿电路。大部分设计并不考虑扬声器系统的电抗特性。这个电抗有时会对反馈电路造成严重影响。如果本来放大器的反馈补偿就很临界，一点点的电抗就可能造成起峰或自激，这个峰很可能在带外（几十KHz)，但对声音却有严重影响。线材的微妙可能在此（线材将在很高的频率严重影响扬声器系统的电抗，这个频率虽然在听觉范围之外，可在放大器有效作用内）。建议玩家用宽频带信号发生器和示波器观察一下系统，会找到听感与技术指标的关联。我认为，一个稳定度很高的功放对线材是不挑剔的。

yxiao

最初由 violin 发表
[B]知道盲人摸象的典故吗？ [/B]

你是说……盲人没错，是“事实”……变了？

噢，明白了，一定是魔术师在捣乱。

violin

最初由 yxiao 发表
[B][QUOTE]最初由 曹霑 发表
[B]其实在“跳大绳的实践”的过程中，忐忑不安的求助者期待咒语灵验的过程、和觉悟高人一等的violet冷笑着等着看笑话的过程，都属于我说的我说的科学实践的过程。嘿嘿。[/B]

原来在你看来所有的实践都是科学的实践了。那么科学的实践属于实践这个命题估计你是不会反对的。根据形式逻辑，假如A∈B,B∈A，则A≡B.

也就是说假设这般荒谬的前提成立，那么将实践检验真理改成科学实践检验真理也是正确的，为什么不了？因为是心里有鬼。

再说假设 科学实践是检验真理的唯一标准 成立，那么没有逻辑等方法如何检验？ 没有指导实践的科学理论作为出发点如何检验？这个唯一岂不是荒谬？改成唯三算了。可是三者综合就是科学呀？那么岂不是变成“科学是检验真理的唯一标准”吗？

cql

关于咸菜，已经争论很九，到底有没有用，其实不必得出统一的结论。
玩家若能听出，觉得价格合适，只管买好了；若觉得上任何线都一样，何必“浪费”银子？
人的听力是有差别的，听不出，并不妨碍他（她）喜欢音响。

蓝调

最初由 yulihua 发表
[B]我指攻放内的前级放大器。别谈哲学了，说不清楚的，谈技术好不好？[/B]

楼主谈的是信号线和喇叭线，不是前级里的连接线

arc

俺认为作用是有的。但把买线的资金投入到喇叭上，效果更大。

蓝调

鉴于某些人对“实践”与“真理”这样简单的问题上混淆不清，不得不专门就此说2句

首先，我们所说的真理是客观真理，是人的思想对于客观世界及其规律的正确反映。

因此，作为检验真理的标准，就不能到主观领域内去寻找，不能到理论领域内去寻找。

思想、理论自身不能成为检验自身是否符合客观实际的标准。

作为检验真理的标准，必须具有把人的思想和客观世界联系起来的特性，否则就无法检验。

人的实践是改造和认识客观世界的活动，是主观见之于客观的东西。实践具有把思想和客观实际联系起来的特性。

因此，正是实践也只有实践，才能够完成检验真理的任务。

yxiao

最初由 violin 发表
[B]……那么将实践检验真理改成科学实践检验真理也是正确的，为什么不了？因为是心里有鬼……[/B]

“那么将实践检验真理改成科学实践检验真理也是正确的”，没错呵？我没说“不”，“鬼”呢，我怎么见不到？

蓝调

因此，跳大神之所以是伪科学，是因为它的理论是伪科学的，而不是因为跳大神的行为，这种行为本身还是属于实践

再说的白一点，某人说他自己有一种特异功能，一套音响器材拿来，只要他对着它一发功，器材效果立刻升级。这在确定人类没有特异功能之前，只有让他实践一下才知道是否如他所说那样

一种新的理论，在它不抵触现有的（从实践中得到的）科学理论情况下，只有通过实践来检验它的真伪。只靠逻辑推理是无法判断的，否则人类今后不用作任何实践了，大家都坐下来，在现有理论基础上不断推理，就可以穷尽所有真理了！