Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupie Sillyborg on audio purchases



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.

  #2   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

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. 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.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me.
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.
Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if
we want it to agree with such observations.

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




Gareth.


  #3   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Gareth Magennis said:

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


My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.



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

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


Gareth Magennis said:


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


My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.


For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?
That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.

Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.



--

-S
  #5   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Sillyborg stuttered:

My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.


For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?


Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
limit of your understanding.

That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.


This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.

Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.


Yes, do. Pull my wings off.

I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how
stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can:

1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
pecuniousness and/or penury.

3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
density of your ossified mind)

4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?

Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.






  #6   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


Sillyborg stuttered:


My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.


For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?


Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
limit of your understanding.



Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
to be getting the attention.


That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.


This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.


It's not hypocritical, though.

Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.


Yes, do. Pull my wings off.


I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how
stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can:


Oh goody.

1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.


Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
ever understand and accept their rationale.
I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.

Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
Like, say, sexual intercourse?

2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
pecuniousness and/or penury.


I certainly do care about the quality of my system. That's why I
didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features that I
specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
to, good sound. Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
processing, connectivity.

Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?
Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
A/V receiver on the market today."

N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
of audiophool species: the price snob.


3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
density of your ossified mind)


These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
technology is mature, even if you aren't.

If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
And so would you.
But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
You, because you believe you can
depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
different from another.

I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
have a grasp on reality.


4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?


Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.



Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.

They also want generally believe they'll live forever,
to think they're beautiful/handsome/popular, to think they are successful
and smart (including smart in their audio buying).

High-end marketing is happy to encourage them on all those counts except
perhaps price.

Now, what is the relation of what people *believe* about what they buy,
to the truth about what they buy? Is it always a one-to-one
correspondence? How do we know when it isn't?

'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.



--

-S
  #7   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
  #8   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry, my mistake, I meant Subjectivist, not Objectivist.


  #9   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


er..scientists *are* objectivists



My mistake - I meant of course Subjectivists




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.




My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
"wrong".
Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
concepts.


Gareth..









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



  #10   Report Post  
Denis Sbragion
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as

....

you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it


  #11   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as

...

you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics.
Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years
away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it



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 progess we will discover, as man always
has done, new ways of modelling or attempting to explain what is going on.
And maybe there will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding
that knocks every current theory on its head. That is the nature of
science. The theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory
as the opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of which
could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to believe that
right now we have everything worked out the way we would like it to be. We
are constantly learning, changing our views, discovering new ways of
thinking. I am saying be open to all possibilities, not be blinkered by
thinking we know it all now.


Gareth.


  #12   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Denis Sbragion wrote:
Hello Gareth,


"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:


My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as

...


you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.


Well, we don't *really* know if the moon is actually
green cheese, or whether it's 'real' at all.

I mean, by Gareth's logic.

Try to keep an open mind, will you? ;


  #13   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Denis Sbragion wrote:
Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as

...

you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.

Bye,

--
. I agree with you. The web exchange of off- the- top- of- the= head speculations has little to do with audio.

But my reasons for saying it are diametrically different. It
is not because audio is a simple physical phenomenon about which we
know all that there is to be known. On the contrary we know next to
zero. At least I do and I suspect that you know fractionally less
because I have superficial acquaintance with neurophysiology of the
brain. Do you?
Quite, quite, sound means waves that enter the ear. From
then on the labyrinth and the cochlea and the acoustic nerve and the
acoustic brain centres in the temporal lobe cortex and the countless
synapses to the frontal cortex and other connexions we have yet to
learn about get to work on it..
And neither you nor I have the foggiest what the brain makes of the
complex , interweaving sound waves originated by a piece of music. How
does a flutist tell the difference between two flutes?
There is more complexity under the heavens than your
textbooks had an inkling of.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #14   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be


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.




My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.


No, it doesn't imply that. All scientific explanations are provisional.
All *you* need to do is provide scientific evidence of equal power, that the
current explanation is the wrong one.

Invoking subjective feelings isn't scientific evidence.

You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
"wrong".


This is a hugely flawed line of reasoning. It says that because not everything
is known, then nothing is known. It says that because one can imagine
another answer, then all answers are equally likely. It says that because
something *might* be wrong (or right), then all things are equally likely
to be wrong (or right).

Of course, if either of these two ideas were true, then we would have
NO technology, for one thing.

Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
concepts.


You were right except for the last phrase of the last sentence. A
scienctific fact isn't true *just* for the individual scientist who
believes it. It should be demonstrably true to any other person
who repeats the observation under the same conditions.
That's what makes it science. There are not different scientific
facts in India versus Canada versus the US.

Btw, if there is no scientific 'knowing' then by the same criterion
there is no 'knowing' at all. This suggests that one needs to
adjust the definition of 'knowing' so that it means something.
It's not sufficient to say that introspection leads to one
determining how things 'really are' -- this is simply another
form of model building.



  #15   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.


You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
which cable was connected.

Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
*really* trust their ears.

Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
back your opinion. That's how science works.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #16   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.


You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
which cable was connected.

Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
*really* trust their ears.

Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
back your opinion. That's how science works.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering




And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.


Gareth.


  #17   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message



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


This is especially true since most audiophiles who throw
these terms around don't seem to know what the generally
accepted meanings of these words are. I pointed this out in
pretty good detail and by citing some pretty fair references
as part of my opening remarks at the HE2005 debate with John
Atkinson. While I didn't quite come right out and say it,
Atkinson tortured these words in the style of Saddam Hussein
in his publicity blurb for the debate.

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".


That would be sheerist BS. Scientists have literally
centuries of experience dealing with things that they can't
fully explain.One of the most if not the most fundamental
rules of science is that any particular explanation is
provisional, and only valid until it is falsified. The
falsification of long-standing beliefs is very common in
Science. Furthermore, beliefs that are in essence falsified
continue to have valid applications in broad areas of
scientific endeavor.

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.


This would also be sheerist BS. So-called audio
objectivists are just people who are more comfortable
applying a fairly small and simple requirements to their
observations and beliefs. For example most so-called
objectivists affirm the validity of bias-controlled
listening tests. The whole idea of bias-controlled listening
tests is simple and common-sense. The basic idea of bias
controlled listening tests is that relevant influences that
are not directly related to hearing be managed in a
reasoanble way during the listening test. Furthermore, a
listening test is kind of a subjective evaluation, and if
objectivists were really the narrow fools that certain
people like to make them out to be, they should have no
interest in subjective evaluations of *any* kind. But these
so-called objectivists are quite interested and involved in
subjective evaluations, which brings the very fact that they
are called *objectivists* by some into question. Why are
these *objectivists* so interested and involved in
*subjective* evaluations? Perhaps they are not
*objectivists* at all but some kind of *subjectivist* after
all?

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.


As I explained just a few paragraphs back this is a straw
man argument based on Gareth's poor understanding of audio
objectivists and science itself.

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


Well, now we get down to Gareth's *real* problem. He doesn't
really believe in anything at all. He seems to doubt that
anybody can believe anything.

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.


This ignores the converse possibility that an observation
can agree with a model or hypothesis. In the real world, as
opposed to Gerth's world of constant disagrement,
observations may or may not agree with a hypothesis.





 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Artists cut out the record biz [email protected] Pro Audio 64 July 9th 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"