adamdea;684750 Wrote: > Obviously a little introspection is required before making bold claims > on any side. But that is exactly what is lacking in the subjectivist > blather which has fogged up several threads on this forum. > > In reality all that has happened in response has been some more or less > terse reminders that most of this is probably imaginery, and none of it > constitutes a compelling reasopn for a rational person to wish to apply > the changes to which the imagined effect are attributed. > > There isn't really an epistemological middle ground. That is to say if > you take these things seriously, ie if you actually care whether they > are true, and if you consdier that they deserve serious discussion, you > cannot avoid analysing the reliability of the evidence presented and the > conclusions which can be drawn from it. > > Aside from the really extreme and egregious examples (most of which > come from one source), the ad hominems and the more or less insulting > ways of putting things are largely irrelevant: The essential points > remian and can't be evaded > 1. there does exist a body of science about audio principles, audio > engineering and what human beings can hear. > 2 it requires cogent evidence to make a rational person accept a > proposition which appears to contradict the body of knowledge at 1 > 3 a sensible person who thought he had experienced something which > appeared to contradict that body of knowledge would think again; he > might still conclude that he really had experienced what the thought he > had, but if he didn't think long and hard about it then he would be > showing extraordinary and possibly pathological self-belief.[it's not a > question of demadning scientific evidence from people- if you point out > that it exists it is up to them to consider it and explain it away] > 4 there is a considerable body of evidence within psychoacoustics > (summarised in the poppy crum/ethan weiner talk)which points to the > conclusions that non abx subjective experience is very unreliable. > 5 even if the subjective experience *were* reliable in general as with > all evidence one has with each piece of evidence to consider what > weight is to be attributed to it including especially the reliability > of the witness and the internal coherence of the evidence. > > Now all the appeals to calmness and not being rude etc are largely > largely beside the point if you consider the real complaint by > twaekers on this forum. The complaint is that they think it is rude or > arrogant not to think that what they expereince is true real and cogent > (if not irrefutable) evidence that fiddling with psus/cables/shakti > stones makes your hifi sound > a) different > b) better. > > They think this is rude and arrogant irrespective of how politely or > otherwise it is put. The cries of foul are disngenuous and amount to a > sort of desperate procedural wrangling in a losing case. I have wasted > time politely dealing with certain people's arguments, and in cetain > cases I can;t really be bothered because it ends up the same no matter > what. > > If a point is well made whether with or without the odd calumny thrown > in, it can usually be identified and can still be distinguished from a > "point" which simply consists of insults, suggestiones falsi and > sophistry. > > If people don;t want to have their reports evaluated and considered > then why do they make them? Why do they advise people as to what to do? > Why do they *state* that blah blah blah makes the squeezebox touch into > a much better trasnport? Who are they talking to and why are they doing > it? Plainly they want people to listen and take note. > > In which case what could be wrong with replying "thank you for the > information but, having considered it, it appears to provide no > reasonable ground for altering the view that [blah blah blah] is > unlikely to make any differnece, and no reason to spend any money or > time on a [blah blah blah.]" And that will be just as unwelcome as > saying "Having consdiered your latest posting you still seem to be a > fuckwit". > > Now one could stop at point 4 above but it would be disingenuous to > ignore point 5 if the argument is really being taken seriously. In fact > the tiresome subjectivist/objectivist argument on this forum rarely gets > to the interesting point about the way in which value judgments are > assessed. People who are interested in the arts certainly do hold > ex[press and trade subjective opinions; the fact that these opinions > are subjective does not mean that they can;t be evaluated. There are > more and less rational, cogent and deep reasons for admiring one > painting or preferring it to another. > > And it is therefore quite reasonable to point out that, even if > subjective reports which don't make any technical sense are *in > principle* to be taken seriously, some reporters have excluded > themselves from being taken seriously by writing bizarre, hyperbolic, > contradictory crap day in day out. You don't really have to get into > the philosophy of science to know that no one is going to rethink > Nyquist shannon on the basis of some random postings from the edges of > sanity, however persistent. Now I accept that this last part is tricker > to say without being a little bit rude, but hey!
Thank you. I have a couple very minor quibbles with what you wrote, but they're really not particularly relevant to this forum. On the whole....well done!! -- rgro Rg System information ------------------------ Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Rega DAC > LFD LE IV Signature amp > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305 sub. Home Theatre: Duet/SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558. Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
