In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message
6.1...
Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
about how people react with science, and I think it is little
understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we

mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
available evidence.


But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the
reality
and experience of the Audiophile.

The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
model of reality.

Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
not to shake his faith one tiny bit.

Is this rational?


It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better.

But it may be only as 'real' as that mirage, or that *mistaken idea*.

Or are there *no* mistaken ideas, only 'personal truths'?

And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that
the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him
that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That
doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible.

Wrong. I'm telling him that the *cause* that *he* has deduced
for his experience isn't *necessarily* what he believes it is.
A person stares at a cloud and experiences that it changes shape.
The person concludes that the cloud changed shape because he stared at it.
That's his personal idea of the 'truth' of the matter, but wouldn't you agree
that this line of reasoning is open to question, and that other
causes for the perceived shape change are not only plausible,
but perhaps even more likely to be true?

All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
Not *everything* one can believe, is true.

Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other
they
are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful
to
confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
agree to disagree.


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
the listener *heard* them as different.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?



Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved
either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I
think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
each other.


Yet the subjectivist will go on using an example of
the patent evidence that some 'realities' are 'universal' --
namely, his computer.

Remarkable.



--

-S