Civility

[christopher3393]

25 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Yes, it was my opinion.  

 

Seems to have hit a nerve.  Heh heh.  

 

That's perhaps the strongest and most compelling evidence in support of its veracity. 

 

Would you like a rimshot for that?  he-he. So your reasoned response turns out to be...snark. What a surprise! 

 

Just a prejudice that serves your own interests, nothing really to suggest veracity.

 

You're just ducking the question, aren't you?

[christopher3393]

16 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Turns out that, too, is an artifact of yet another subjectivist error.

 

I meant it loosely, metaphorically, as I said. But perhaps you would like to explain? I'll bet you don't care for Kuhn one bit, do you?

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, theism is the belief that there is at least one god. Agnosticism is the rejection of both these beliefs on the grounds that the existence or not of gods is unknowable. It's binary with a high-z state.

 

No.  Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.  If you check any online atheism group they will confirm. 

 

From the Wikipedia page:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities

 

Therefore, you either possess a belief or are absent of a belief in god(s). Many agnostistics I know also call themselves atheists ( or "soft" atheists).

 

 

[lucretius]

 

2 hours ago, crenca said:

All knowledge then implies an underlying "belief".

 

Two points:

 

Belief does not imply knowledge.

and

Agnosticism is not knowledge -- it is a doctrine about knowledge.  Therefore, agnosticism does not imply belief.

 

 

[crenca]

mansr said:

 

"Atheism is the belief that there is no god(s)"

 

lucretius said:

 

"No.  Atheism is the lack of belief in gods."

 

Wikipedia says:

 

"Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

 

Two points:

 

Belief does not imply knowledge.

and

Agnosticism is not knowledge -- it is a doctrine about knowledge.  Therefore, agnosticism does not imply belief.

 

 

  

Your logic is correct, but it rests on a "belief".  Or as you put it, a "doctrine" about knowledge which is a belief that your logic rests upon and without your logic would be "empty" as it were...

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, wgscott said:

No. Atheism is the lack of a belief that there is a god:  without theism.

The dictionary says "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." The etymology is given as "from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’." It's a stronger position than the "don't know, don't care" of agnosticism.

[lucretius]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

  

Your logic is correct, but it rests on a "belief".  Or as you put it, a "doctrine" about knowledge which is a belief that your logic rests upon and without your logic would be "empty" as it were...

 

What's relevant here is that agnosticism does not imply belief in god(s).

[plissken]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

You might want to note archimago, who I think you respect, counsels those who are trying to move this hobby toward greater objectivity to be "gracious" when they post in response to someone who may not share their perspective. But perhaps you think he is wrong about that. I think he offers a great example for posting graciously without compromising his  message. I think he has chosen "civility".

 

I respect what Archimago does very much. I don't consider my message compromised. In some ways I consider my usual offer of $2000 very gracious indeed. 

 

The seemingly odd way it's perceived is not on me and I think the reaction is a cautionary tale about how much the subjective person fears exposure. 

[sandyk]

27 minutes ago, plissken said:

The seemingly odd way it's perceived is not on me and I think the reaction is a cautionary tale about how much the subjective person fears exposure. 

 

 

Dream on !!!

 

[plissken]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 

Dream on !!!

 

 

The objective facts bare me out however. Your reaction even backs the assertion that subjectivists do worry about a bias controlled evaluation. I've been offering to be onsite at someones setup for the better part of 6 years now with cash in hand. The fact that is out of all the times I've made a direct offer (~60 attempts at kicking the ball) I finally have one person that is confident enough in their hearing. 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

  In the objectivist view, "delusional" is a perfectly valid, useful, and most importantly morally acceptable term.  Not only that, from the objectivist position, your attempt to declare the term morally unacceptable is itself a moral offense! 

 

Really ... ?? From Google's take,

 

"characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

 

Personally, I would see one or two people taking offense with this label ...

[sandyk]

Just now, plissken said:

The objective facts bare me out however.

 

 That is pure BS and speculation on your part.

Putting it quite simply, most people don't trust those who flash money around to  try and prove a point.

Neither does your highly aggressive attitude engender any degree of trust in you.

In any event, I have all the conformation I feel the need for after the 6 sets of DBTs performed by Martin Colloms, and verification by Barry D. with the comparison CD-R that I sent him.

 As far as I am concerned, you are an Anonymous nobody hiding behind a keyboard , as well as hiding behind a Proxy email address!

 

BYE !

[fas42]

With all this god talk around, I think it might be helpful to define what we mean by a "god" ...

[Shadders]

Hi,

Maybe we could change the thread title to "Civility vs. Incivility, Which One Will Win ?"

Regards,

Shadders.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Really ... ?? From Google's take,

 

"characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

 

Personally, I would see one or two people taking offense with this label ...

 

I'm trying to figure out what is at issue with the dictionary definition.

 

This is called Computer Audiophile. These systems are largely, if not mostly, asynchronous and highly buffered, but yet we see 100% unsupportable claims like two MD5 identical files can sound different. Or the storage type of HDD, SDD in a remote NAS can affect SQ, or enhanced oscillators in a Switch or Router or NIC can improve SQ, or Ethernet cables change sound, or the SATA cable even the brand of RAM. 

[plissken]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 That is pure BS and speculation on your part.

 

It is what it is. I put up the offer. Some start to consider it and then back down once they've considered the ramifications. 

 

Again I'm going on-site next month for a visit and will follow up afterwards. 

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I'm trying to figure out what is at issue with the dictionary definition.

 

This is called Computer Audiophile. These systems are largely, if not mostly, asynchronous and highly buffered, but yet we see 100% unsupportable claims like two MD5 identical files can sound different. Or the storage type of HDD, SDD in a remote NAS can affect SQ, or enhanced oscillators in a Switch or Router or NIC can improve SQ, or Ethernet cables change sound, or the SATA cable even the brand of RAM. 

 

With regard to differing electrical scenarios or environments for playback, there is nothing unexplainable about it. Once one gets to a certain level of precision incredible care has to be taken to get complete repeatability, with measuring - air currents around the space will alter the readings, say. So, the real question is how sensitive people's hearing is to subtle variations caused by any number of factors - not whether any measurable changes occur.

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

With regard to differing electrical scenarios or environments for playback, there is nothing unexplainable about it.

Then using measurements and bias controlled evaluation methods explain.... 

 

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Once one gets to a certain level of precision incredible care has to be taken to get complete repeatability, with measuring - air currents around the space will alter the readings

I didn't know air currents around my ADC could effect it's sensitivity. I'll capture a track with a fan blowing air on it and one with not. Let me know which is which. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

So, the real question is how senstive people's hearing is to subtle variations caused by any number of factors - not whether any measurable changes occur.

 

Subtle variations happen all the time. All these tweaks seem to be able to surmount them. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

I respect what Archimago does very much. I don't consider my message compromised. In some ways I consider my usual offer of $2000 very gracious indeed. 

 

The seemingly odd way it's perceived is not on me and I think the reaction is a cautionary tale about how much the subjective person fears exposure. 

I agree and up-voted your comment.

 

OTOH, consider a subjectivist person has some discomfort at taking a blind test.  Perhaps without being consciously aware of it they feel uncomfortable or challenged.  The fear of exposure that something they believe and have experienced might not be real.  I don't know of a gracious way to get someone to take part in that.  There certainly are plenty of ungracious ways.  It is like telling someone who did not know they were adopted as an infant that their parents aren't who they thought they were. 

 

Under such circumstances the offer of money probably adds pressure to an already uncomfortable thought for most people. 

 

I have posted files and less than 1% of viewers download the files to hear some effect or lack thereof.  Only about 1%-3% of those will reveal their results.  

 

I observed back in the 70's the infamous Pepsi challenge.  In malls, public events various places Pepsi had a little booth.  You tasted two colas and picked which you prefer.  Sometimes they asked you to pick which was which.  I much preferred Coke.  When asked by a girlfriend to do the taste test, the Pepsi challenge I at first said no.  And felt very uncomfortable when asked to prove I could spot the difference.  She began making fun of it, and I then thought, "this is stupid, who cares, go ahead and do it".  So she prefaced my tasting by telling the booth people how I much preferred Coke and would prove it right here.  I did feel uncomfortable even then. Without a label they aren't as different as I thought.  I did however choose my preference by saying I like this one because it is Coke.  And it was. 

 

So if people are bothered by something as simple as choosing a cheap sugar water drink, when will blind testing be comfortable for them?  Slapping what amounts to a bet on it doesn't help even if the bet is one sided with nothing to lose.  That is because if they 'fail' the test they do lose even if it isn't money.  

 

Now I can answer the question about when blind comparisons become comfortable.  There are two ways for that to happen.  One is if the test is about something you care nothing about or preferably will never be told the results of it.  Or when you have done such a thing a handful of times and that sense of trepidation goes away from experience.   

 

Even your taste in colas becomes personal and taking a chance to reveal it as flawed gives you the willies because it is part of who you are.  You are Coke person not a Pepsi person.  

 

So if more audiophiles would get together and take a few tests the experience would de-condition the feeling of a challenge or threat.  I am not too surprised when I think it thru some at the low response such offers get.  

[plissken]

Thanks for the response and it's basic re-iteration of what I've heard before. 

 

People earn money everyday doing things they claim they can do. My offer is no different. If you say you can do my taxes correctly and I only pay up if you can't. That's an everyday occurrence. The accountant isn't under any undue stress. It's something they simply can do.

 

It's the same with the subjectivist that says 'night and day', 'readily apparent', 'easily discerned', 'hear differences everyday in all sorts of setups and venues'. 

 

When you make such statements and even go to the extreme of telling someone either their ears or their system or both 'aren't resolving' enough then you've placed yourself in the camp of self authored competency/authority. There should be no stress by getting paid for something insist you can do. 

 

I'm showing that you can't even get self proclaimed subject matter experts to step up when offered easy money.

 

On the flip side if the offer of $$ and coming out indeeds stresses out the subjectivist then that says much about what they actually believe. I'm in a win / win situation up to the point someone has me out and is able to take my $$. 

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, esldude said:

So if more audiophiles would get together and take a few tests the experience would de-condition the feeling of a challenge or threat.  I am not too surprised when I think it thru some at the low response such offers get.  

 

 A group of us has done that on numerous occasions over the years in Sydney. Au.

Neither do most members have any degree of confidence in the ability of those who demand these things to set up fool proof tests over the Internet. Far too many Objectivists refuse to accept that even Internet transfer may affect final results, which is why I prefer to send physical media wherever possible. Even then, there is no guarantee that the equipment used by the recipient is of the same calibre, due to the huge variety of equipment available, including Software used for playback, and even the quality of the DAC used, as well as the rest of the playback chain including Speakers, and perhaps Headphone Amplifiers and the actual headphones used, even the type of music used !

[mansr]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

Neither do most members have any degree

in engineering.

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, plissken said:

Thanks for the response and it's basic re-iteration of what I've heard before. 

 

People earn money everyday doing things they claim they can do. My offer is no different. If you say you can do my taxes correctly and I only pay up if you can't. That's an everyday occurrence. The accountant isn't under any undue stress. It's something they simply can do.

 

It's the same with the subjectivist that says 'night and day', 'readily apparent', 'easily discerned', 'hear differences everyday in all sorts of setups and venues'. 

 

When you make such statements and even go to the extreme of telling someone either their ears or their system or both 'aren't resolving' enough then you've placed yourself in the camp of self authored competency/authority. There should be no stress by getting paid for something insist you can do. 

 

I'm showing that you can't even get self proclaimed subject matter experts to step up when offered easy money.

 

On the flip side if the offer of $$ and coming out indeeds stresses out the subjectivist then that says much about what they actually believe. I'm in a win / win situation up to the point someone has me out and is able to take my $$. 

Other than at the very beginning, people earn money everyday doings things they know they can do.  Most people are similarly uncomfortable when starting a job they haven't done previously.  So your offer is VERY different from a job. 

 

I do agree with you, when people state night and day differences or think the difference is so large only poor systems or half deaf people could miss it they should pony up and show us.  With differences that large the test would be easy.  When they fail at a bare minimum they should learn the differences are not night and day.  Anything else is irrational.  However, we don't live in the world of should.  And it should be readily apparent from your experience your method won't entice people to take your tests.  They should, but they won't.  

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 A group of us has done that on numerous occasions over the years in Sydney. Au.

Neither do most members have any degree of confidence in the ability of those who demand these things to set up fool proof tests over the Internet. Far too many Objectivists refuse to accept that even Internet transfer may affect final results, which is why I prefer to send physical media wherever possible. Even then, there is no guarantee that the equipment used by the recipient is of the same calibre, due to the huge variety of equipment available, including Software used for playback, and even the quality of the DAC used, as well as the rest of the playback chain including Speakers, and perhaps Headphone Amplifiers and the actual headphones used, even the type of music used !

 

I can count on one finger the number of people I've encountered in my lifetime who believe that transferring binary data over the Internet changes it's sound quality.