Jump to content
IGNORED

God and the Audiophiles


joelha

Recommended Posts

Thanks for posting this Joel. You pose what are for me very difficult questions. I would have a hard time generalizing about audiophile "objectivist" metaphysical positions. It seems plausible that there could be a higher percentage of naturalists in the objectivist population than in the subjectivist or general population.

 

I think some get emotional out of a desire to protect what they consider to be the integrity of a discipline based on application of soundly established results of scientific method, perhaps somewhat conservatively understood at times---a more cautious approach that willingly submits to and adheres to certain established theory, protocol, and practice, open to ongoing revision, but only after rigorous and repeated testing and measurement that aspires to the strictest standards. These standards are often quantifiable, mathematical.

 

Now whether this is primarily a commitment to a method or methods in practice, or whether it has also become a worldview that prioritizes the value of scientific knowledge over most or all other forms of knowing, is hard to say. Often, these other, "less objective" or "non'objective" ways of knowing can be assigned a strictly subjective status, which then appears to remove the problem. For example, quality in music is often considered to be strictly subjective, which would be a surprise to many premodern composers, musicians and audiences, both East and West.

 

It would be very interesting to know how members here respond to the "New Atheism" and if there is any correlation between the conflicts here and the larger debate about the truth status of religion and its role in an increasingly secularized society.

 

"Faith" is such a multivalent word! It can mean a confidence and trust in a direction one is proceeding in, without certainty regarding the final outcome. In that sense, I think we see many different "faiths" operative here, sometimes very different practices, and yet it is my understanding that good results can come from a variety of different and in some ways even contradictory approaches. I believe bad results can occur as well on both ends of the spectrum. And since there is not a common discursive approach for sorting this out through discussion, things often fall apart without getting to the bottom of anything or even agreeing to disagree and being glad that at least we've figured that out with some precision and shared vocabulary.

Link to comment
I see it as more of continuum. You have a couple of hard-core members at both ends of the spectrum but the rest of us fall somewhere along this continuum.

 

+1. My guess is that the usual suspects (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) who go at it tooth and nail represent the extreme wings of the two camps, and there's a more or less silent majority that doesn't really want to get embroiled in all the ad hominem stuff.

 

For example, I'm closer to the objectivist end than the middle.

 

Likewise. I always find it amusing when someone posts to the effect that "most CA'ers believe thus and so." I don't think anyone here knows what most forum readers think, because most of them post rarely or never.

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment
I don't think anyone here knows what most forum readers think, because most of them post rarely or never.

 

Most don't even participate in the numerous polls, even without posting their reasons why. Perhaps this suggests that the polls are either "loaded" to one viewpoint, or poorly constructed ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
The more secular one's outlook on life, the more one demands proof of anything before accepting it. And the less tolerant of other folks who are willing to grant other folks the right to believe what they will.

 

I have to take issue with the notion that the more secular you are, the less tolerant you'll be of others' belief systems. For example, I'm about as secular as anyone can be, but I find other people's belief systems — and that certainly includes major world religions — to be fascinating, and the study of them to be edifying.

 

As far as the OP's question goes, I guess I support the implicit hypothesis. As stated, I'm extremely secular, and I tend toward what we've been calling objectivism.

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment
I have to take issue with the notion that the more secular you are, the less tolerant you'll be of others' belief systems. For example, I'm about as secular as anyone can be, but I find other people's belief systems — and that certainly includes major world religions — to be fascinating, and the study of them to be edifying.

 

As far as the OP's question goes, I guess I support the implicit hypothesis. As stated, I'm extremely secular, and I tend toward what we've been calling objectivism.

 

--David

 

I can see where what I wrote definitely is saying something I didn't mean to say! Apologies.

 

What I mean was more when you approach the fringes of the secular or religious sects, they seem to be more and more alike, and less and less tolerant of any differences. Think for example, ISIS and or some of the more extreme forms of Communism, such as that practices in North Korea.

 

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
It would be very interesting to know how members here respond to the "New Atheism" and if there is any correlation between the conflicts here and the larger debate about the truth status of religion and its role in an increasingly secularized society.

 

Put me down as an "Old Atheist." I find it quite easy to appreciate the power of mythos without subscribing to the notion that one or more sets of believers is correct (or absolutely wrong, for that matter).

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment
What I mean was more when you approach the fringes of the secular or religious sects, they seem to be more and more alike, and less and less tolerant of any differences. Think for example, ISIS and or some of the more extreme forms of Communism, such as that practices in North Korea.

 

Weil, I think the problem is less with what individual people believe or don't believe, and more with the "sect" aspect of things. I'll point out that North Korean-style communism is a pretty weird variant, just as ISIS is a fairly twisted version of Islam.

 

But hey, clarification accepted in the spirit in which it was offered.

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment
Put me down as an "Old Atheist." I find it quite easy to appreciate the power of mythos without subscribing to the notion that one or more sets of believers is correct (or absolutely wrong, for that matter).

--David

 

Do you think one needs to be atheistic in order to hold the position you do? Personally, I think one could be a monotheist or a polytheist and hold that position as well.

 

What do you think of Unitarian Universalism? I ask because it is so inclusive that I wonder, if there is some analogy between religious perspectives and audiophile perspectives, if there is something about it that could help this discussion?

Link to comment
You changed your statement, Allan. Your original comment was that you didn't know any intelligent person who believes in creationism. That's the comment I replied to.

 

Hi Joe:

 

I'm sorry, but in my mind I haven't changed anything and I stand by my original comment. My intent was merely to expand on it in my subsequent post. IMO, evolution and creationism are both incompatible and irreconcilable with one another.

 

I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by "validate" opinions. I wouldn't offer opinions about what I hear if I didn't believe they were valid, based on repeated listening. I am sharing my experiences. Consequently, I don't feel that I have to prove anything to anyone. If others choose to reject or question my opinions, that is their prerogative.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
I'm agnostic about God and about many things audio (but not all). And I'm now at peace with that. But I don't think believers are full of it. As others have mentioned, they have faith. I have faith in some things, but not these.

 

I find the phrasing of "used to claim" curious. I can't say I claim it; I am agnostic.

 

The lack of logical equivalence for the two assertions does not force you to accept one. They can be unequal but either can be wrong. I accept your characterization of the null hypothesis; but failure to disprove the null hypothesis does *not* prove the null hypothesis. I lost count of the number of assumptions required in this case (God), but even if I grant you, for argument sake, the null hypothesis has fewer, it still isn't zero, so I don't see what the score means. Either way, you want to avoid the Type I error but ignore the Type II error. Although asymmetric, both errors are... well errors, and I choose to avoid both by just saying I don't know.

 

The definitions I use (I think the dictionary agrees) is that atheist in *not* a lack of belief, that's agnostic. Atheism is a *belief* that there is no god (a + theos = no god), whereas agnostic means you think it's unknowable (a + gnostos = no know).

 

And I don't think no know is a no-no... bad I know, sorry ;-)

 

I don't know that there definitely is not a huge hot-pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter either, but I don't think it is reasonable to be agnostic about this only because I don't have an easy way to test and refute the claim. I do however feel confident making the assumption that the assertion that there is a huge hot-pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter is false. Why? Because it is an extraordinary claim, and there is to my knowledge no evidence in its favor.

Link to comment

 

What that means to me is that anyone who is sure there is a god (or gods), or anyone who is sure there is no god (or gods), is full of it. Can't prove either one. So how can you be so fraking sure?

 

+1 (.."anyone who is sure there is a god (or gods), or anyone who is sure there is no god (or gods), is full of it. Can't prove either one.")

 

And the corollary applies, anyone without proof, sure of their belief that a particular observed difference in musical perception is or is not real is full of it. However, at least those relying on a shared observation have a rational basis for positive evidence.

 

So, when it comes to audio, I am both subjective and objective. That is, what I hear is what matters, since it's only going to be my experience. And yet objective tests of the equipment can be useful information pointing me to components I might want to try.

 

+1 (.."what I hear is what matters, since it's only going to be my experience. And yet objective tests of the equipment can be useful information pointing me to components I might want to try")

 

 

First: I consider myself a scientist (actually I am an Engineer) and would like to believe in objectivity. However I think that we do not have a solid enough understanding to measure what is important. When someone can measure sound stage, image focus, and other nuances we can hear then we will have some objective data to deal with. Until then I will be comfortable trusting my personal preferences in a subjective manner.

 

Stated like any true scientist. ….( "However I think that we do not have a solid enough understanding to measure what is important. When someone can measure sound stage, image focus, and other nuances we can hear then we will have some objective data to deal with. Until then I will be comfortable trusting my personal preferences in a subjective manner")

 

We are not supposed to fit the world into our theories but rather our theories into the world.

 

 

Yes the curious idea objectivists are flat earthers. Yet if referenced to all other areas of life it is the subjectivists who are the flat earthers. A bit of long standing audiophile propaganda behind that I do believe. Flat eathers believer in all these unseen forces and didn't want to investigate out of fear of revealing the unknown. Sounds like subjectivists audiophiles to me.

 

I like the flat earth society analogy as it conjures up scenes of "objective" people making measurements to justify just about anything.

" Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, a 19th century lecturer who traveled the isles of Britain giving lectures at many prominent universities of the day. His experimental evidence is very easily reproducible and requires only access to a long body of standing water and a little trig to conclude that water is not convex, that the surface of the earth does not curve as round earth doctrine mathematically predicts. Other experiments require only a stick and a plumb line. Each of the experiments are described in full in the flat earth literature. "

 

As with all real science, you must question if you are measuring what you think you are measuring, are those measurements correlated to anything meaningful, are the correlations of any causal significance...reliability,validity,sensitivity,specificity etc (you know the drill).

 

 

The one thing I am being totally serious about is that I think the idea that we can perceive things that are intrinsically unmeasurable or cannot be detected or tested by any "objective" means has a religious (or less prejudicially, metaphysical) whiff to it.

 

Failure to measure a round earth does not make it flat. That 'odour' is the "whiff" of your (un)scientific bias.

 

I used to claim to be an agnostic for similar reasons, until a few people convinced me it was a cop-out. Briefly, my position was falsely predicated upon the assumption that there is a reciprocity between the belief "there is a deity" and the belief "there is no deity." This is very similar, logically, to the two assertions "Cable A makes an audible difference" and "Cable A does not make an audible difference."

My assumption that the two assertions are somehow logically equivalent, however, is false. In each case, the second statement is the "null hypothesis," and requires the fewest number of arbitrary assumptions. In addition, it is very clear how the null hypothesis can be refuted (just provide one counter-example).

The atheist position is a lack of belief -- it is the null hypothesis. It isn't a question of being sure it is right, but rather, being able to state under what conditions one would accept it is wrong.

 

This is not logical to me if my understanding of what differentiates an agnostic from atheist is true.Atheism, depending where you look, being considered the lack of belief in gods, the absence of belief in gods, disbelief in gods, not believing in gods… anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know that any gods exist or not. Atheism involves what a person does or does not believe, agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know.

 

Saying you are no longer an agnostic doesn’t follow based on, "my position [as agnostic] was falsely predicated upon the assumption that there is a reciprocity between the belief "there is a deity" and the belief "there is no deity."

 

You may or may not believe in one or more gods, but if you don't also claim to know for sure, you may be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

 

As far as to the two assertions "Cable A makes an audible difference" and "Cable A does not make an audible difference." I would consider myself a believer (when I do in fact observe the difference), but not claiming to know for sure (where there is lack of proof).

 

 

You left out the apostrophe in "Objectivists" when you disingenuously altered the cartoon to be more ideologically serviceable to your agenda.

 

I fixed it for you !

 

Objectivists-Intelligent-Audio-Design-Class.jpg

 

 

Here's another with apostrophe ;-)

 

 

 

 

Audiophiles'-High-5.jpg

 

I don't believe in your homeopathic bits or absurd tweaks that don't pass muster if you even have the most basic technical understanding of a subject, does not make me a dogmatic fool. The burden of proof lies with the people making incredible claims that go against accepted science/research or even more basic fundamentals like how computers work.It's not my job to refute the absurd notion that files with identical CRCs could possibly sound different.

 

Hmmm …The "absurd" thing here is your presumption of understanding accepted science and research (methods). As to burden of proof, it is up to whoever wishes to try to prove or disprove what many people are observing (you confuse "claim" with observation). Hey, just coz you can't observe some things may just mean you are in the wrong hobby or business ;-)

 

 

I don't know that there definitely is not a huge hot-pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter either, but I don't think it is reasonable to be agnostic about this only because I don't have an easy way to test and refute the claim. I do however feel confident making the assumption that the assertion that there is a huge hot-pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter is false. Why? Because it is an extraordinary claim, and there is to my knowledge no evidence in its favor.

 

 

I'll grant you this as either reductio ad absurdum or straw man logical fallacy !

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
(grin) I pity that there stone.

 

Better still, look in the mirror and pity the pompous ass, :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
I don't know that there definitely is not a huge hot-pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter either, but I don't think it is reasonable to be agnostic about this only because I don't have an easy way to test and refute the claim. I do however feel confident making the assumption that the assertion that there is a huge hot-pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter is false. Why? Because it is an extraordinary claim, and there is to my knowledge no evidence in its favor.

You are right. But the Church of the Jovian Hot-Pink Rabbit would be lonely. Throughout history, there have been a few more believers in a higher power (billions). Of course, it's not an election, but quite a few reasonably intelligent people have believed (Einstein, Newton, Schrödinger, Decartes.... among others) and may not find the claim quite as extraordinary as a silly pink rabbit. Also, they weren't DBTs, but there are many anecdotal bits of evidence.

*I* don't find this compelling enough to believe, but I have no *need* to dismiss the billions as delusional.

EDIT: I also don't believe many audiophile claims, but for many of them, a not completely implausible cojecture (RF leakage, ground loops) prevents me from *believing* they are crazy. I withhold judgement. I'm agnostic. Need to test...

Link to comment
You are right. But the Church of the Jovian Hot-Pink Rabbit would be lonely. Throughout history, there have been a few more believers in a higher power (billions). Of course, it's not an election, but quite a few reasonably intelligent people have believed (Einstein, Newton, Schrödinger, Decartes.... among others) and may not find the claim quite as extraordinary as a silly pink rabbit. Also, they weren't DBTs, but there are many anecdotal bits of evidence.

*I* don't find this compelling enough to believe, but I have no *need* to dismiss the billions as delusional.

EDIT: I also don't believe many audiophile claims, but for many of them, a not completely implausible cojecture (RF leakage, ground loops) prevents me from *believing* they are crazy. I withhold judgement. I'm agnostic. Need to test...

 

And there you have the one, essential difference between ourselves and the flying saucer cults, the devotees of SCIENCE!, and the religious nuts disturbing veteran funerals because they think Homosexuality is the reason the soldier or sailor died.

 

Neither you, nor I, nor any reasoning adult in our society should feel the NEED to convince anyone else of their beliefs. Share them, yes. Listen to other folks share their beliefs, yes. Chop off the other person's head if they do not agree? No. Berate them and try to make them feel stupid or inferior? No.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Most of my closest friends are athiest. Most of them think I'm agnostic because I'm too lazy to decide. This is false. I've thought about belief in God more than any other single topic in my life. My agnosticism about God helps comfort me about agnostism about many scientific questions, including some audiophile claims. I'm not uncomfortable not knowing. I'll die being ignorant of vastly more information than I can possibly stuff in my little head.

Belief without proof is faith. I *do* have faith that there is no giant rabbit behind Jupiter. I do *not* have faith that there is no god or that it's impossible for cables to influence sound. Without proof, I just go on living my life.

One of my friends gets angry with me when I don't accept his "scientists must be athiest" line of argument. He uses many of the pro-athiest arguments presented here. He gets even angrier when I chide him with "scientists shouldn't rely on faith for such a question". Athiests rely on faith.

Link to comment
Most of my closest friends are athiest. Most of them think I'm agnostic because I'm too lazy to decide. This is false. I've thought about belief in God more than any other single topic in my life. My agnosticism about God helps comfort me about agnostism about many scientific questions, including some audiophile claims. I'm not uncomfortable not knowing. I'll die being ignorant of vastly more information than I can possibly stuff in my little head.

Belief without proof is faith. I *do* have faith that there is no giant rabbit behind Jupiter. I do *not* have faith that there is no god or that it's impossible for cables to influence sound. Without proof, I just go on living my life.

One of my friends gets angry with me when I don't accept his "scientists must be athiest" line of argument. He uses many of the pro-athiest arguments presented here. He gets even angrier when I chide him with "scientists shouldn't rely on faith for such a question". Athiests rely on faith.

 

+1

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
So we agree! All the athiests' lack of proof does not give me the truth, even though there is social consensus amongst my scientist friends...

 

I would only change a few letters.....So we agree! All the athiests' lack of proof does not give me the truth, even though there is social consensus amongst my pseudo-scientist friends...

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...