AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is
more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something
for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a
component.

And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as
to strongly rule out other explanations?

Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray.

Then again, it can lead to things like...the computer you typed your
reply on. You know, the products of science and technology 'n
stuff like that.

The context you imply here would seem to be a false dichotomy. Either
science is always right or science is always wrong.

I certainly don't imply that, nor would I ever intentionally do so.

The need to *explain* seems to be natural in Homo sap. The explanation
can be led astray by faulty reasoning. The instinct to explain, to apply
reason, has produced all our religions as well as our science and
technology.

Of course science and engineering are successful at predicting and
controlling the behavior of the objective world.

But activities practiced by pyscho-acousticians are not necessarily
successful at predicting and controlling the subjective world.

Certainly psychoacoustics strives to be *predictive* as well as
*descriptive*, as does any science. Certainly psychoacoustics
has achieved some predictive successes. Are you aware of them?

I know you've mentioned before that science is employed in the design
of audiophile equipment

not always consistently, alas.

--as though there were some inherent
contradiction in enjoying that equipment while "rejecting the science."

There is a certain self-blinkering going on when someone enjoys the
fruits of scientific method while insisting that it doesn't apply
to *them*.

Of course it is employed. Audio components exist simultaneously on the
objective and subjective level--they are objective objects, but they
are also the target of subjective observation. Naturally, ideas from
both levels contribute to their design.

I'm not talking about aesthetic appreciation of equipment.

I am talking about how we come to conclusions about *why* we heard
what we heard.

These conclusions can be based on sound chains of reasoning, or bad ones.

--

-S