View Single Post
  #4   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.tech Gareth Magennis wrote:

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.

But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
aren't really relying on your ears.


This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes
purchase
decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.

I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.



This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
resolved to eithers' satisfaction.


er..scientists *are* objectivists

Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
proof etc".


Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
persuit.


Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
'feels' right, is the right one.

It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be
unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.


Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including
the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true
that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true.
Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see
if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far.
It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe*
is true.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me.


Apparently.

All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to
agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance.


And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere?

Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if
we want it to agree with such observations.


Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to
sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't
require revision of current models to explain --
it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models.

So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
going to win this argument.


Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale
for the 'objectivist' skepticism.




--

-S