God and the Audiophiles

[petaluma]

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.

 

Paul, the only question I have is how many "Reasoning Adults" are left in our society. We have news agencies that either have a firm agenda or are incompetently bombarding the masses with questionable information. The masses either do not care or choose to abdicate their required participation in society. And what I mean by that is a Democracy, and since we are talking about existence as a whole, Humanity will only prosper/survive based on an educated electorate. And "Reasoning" I believe is not necessarily an inherent state of human beings. It is a learned behavior/practice and we seem to find it easier as a society to be at war with each other and consequently lose what humanity we have. And for me because my jury is still out on the existence of someone whose is going to bail us out, God, I believe humanity is all we have. I'm not very hopeful....

[SoundAndMotion]

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...

+1 my sympathies

-1 amongst *my* good friend are some of the most honest, smartest, highest-quality scientists... "pseudo-" doesn't fit.

I know pseudo-s, but I usually don't hang out with them much... I don't think it's cuz they're pseudo, we just don't get along so well. Maybe my view on them clouds my view of their science...

[wgscott]

He isn't competent to distinguish between them.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

+1 my sympathies

-1 amongst *my* good friend are some of the most honest, smartest, highest-quality scientists... "pseudo-" doesn't fit.

I know pseudo-s, but I usually don't hang out with them much... I don't think it's cuz they're pseudo, we just don't get along so well. Maybe my view on them clouds my view of their science...

 

Lol, no none of my actual friends are pseudoscientists either. Didn't mean to disparage your actual friends, just to point out that I agree with the idea that social consensus amongst scientists is not grounds for scientific truth. I think there are aspects of pseudoscience in statements like "scientists must be athiest" and agree with "scientists shouldn't rely on faith for such a question". Athiests rely on faith."

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

He isn't competent to distinguish between them.

 

Hi Bill,oooh, didn't take long for your ad hominem attack eh ? Careful....

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

What, no racist slur yet about Australians ? You fit at least one in per thread......

[wgscott]

Hi Bill,oooh, didn't take long for your ad hominem attack eh ? Careful....

 

Nonsense. I was merely pointing out you are not particularly qualified to pass judgement upon the scientific competency of people you know nothing about.

 

If I wanted to post an ad hominem attack, I would simply point out that you are a supercilious, arrogant, haughty, conceited, disdainful, overbearing, pompous, condescending, superior, patronizing, imperious, proud, snobbish, smug, scornful, sneering, hoity-toity, high and mighty, uppity, snooty, stuck-up, snot-nosed mis-informed and grotesquely verbose twit.

 

But I didn't do that.

[SoundAndMotion]

"Chillax" - SAM's son

[petaluma]

I am not a scientist. I am friends with a few but the term pseudoscientist is getting thrown around a lot here. So what exactly defines a pseudoscientist?

[wgscott]

What, no racist slur yet about Australians ? You fit at least one in per thread......

 

Please show me one such slur. Otherwise please cease and desist with the libel.

[wgscott]

I am not a scientist. I am friends with a few but the term pseudoscientist is getting thrown around a lot here. So what exactly defines a pseudoscientist?

 

Anyone who disagrees with "Audiophile Neuroscience".

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

If I wanted to post an ad hominem attack, I would simply point out that you are a supercilious, arrogant, haughty, conceited, disdainful, overbearing, pompous, condescending, superior, patronizing, imperious, proud, snobbish, smug, scornful, sneering, hoity-toity, high and mighty, uppity, snooty, stuck-up, snot-nosed mis-informed and grotesquely verbose twit.

 

Cmmon Bill, don't hold back, let it all out, you forgot the racist slur !

 

[kumakuma]

Please show me one such slur. Otherwise please cease and desist with the libel.

 

I'd be very surprised if Bill made such a slur. Sarcasm is his weapon of choice.

[SoundAndMotion]

I am not a scientist. I am friends with a few but the term pseudoscientist is getting thrown around a lot here. So what exactly defines a pseudoscientist?

My self-serving definition:

A scientist uses available knowledge, reason and logic to seek the truth (about something they find interesting=bonus)

A pseudoscientist uses "science" to further a different, personal agenda. "Science" means the appearance of valid scientific methods pruned to suit the goal.

[petaluma]

My self-serving definition:

A scientist uses available knowledge, reason and logic to seek the truth (about something they find interesting=bonus)

A pseudoscientist uses "science" to further a different, personal agenda. "Science" means the appearance of valid scientific methods pruned to suit the goal.

 

So the agenda of a pseudoscientist does not as a rule, have the potential for a positive outcome for society? By definition it seems to be an attack methodology.....

 

If someone agrees with the agenda do they also consider the individual a pseudoscientist?

[wgscott]

It's a term of dismissal, like flat-earther or communist. It saves one from having to consider the merits of the argument.

[SoundAndMotion]

So the agenda of a pseudoscientist does not as a rule, have the potential for a positive outcome for society? By definition it seems to be an attack methodology.....

 

If someone agrees with the agenda do they also consider the individual a pseudoscientist?

The personal agenda CAN benefit society.... no simple example comes to mind, but it seems possible. If you agree with the agenda, but find the methods dishonest, you can like the agenda but condemn the method.

 

It's a term of dismissal, ...

Agree, it is highly derogatory.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

It's a term of dismissal, like flat-earther or communist.

 

If the shoe fits

 

It saves one from having to consider the merits of the argument.

 

Only if left unchallenged (challenges obviously threaten you). Like if you or others want to use music ABX DBT as a scientific test for perception of complex musical experiences, then show me the quality measures of that test's performance. I keep on asking but I don't get the references, just the same unsubstantiated reliance on music ABX DBT tests. I mean surely you wouldn't use a non calibrated non validated tool in your work would you ? That would be pseudoscience...."a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method".

[esldude]

If the shoe fits

 

You certainly seem the one rather than presenting an argument stooping to use stereotypical debate halting terms like 'flat earther'. You also seem to have a habit of turning such terms around backwards as a criticism, while actually supplying no alternatives. Pretty much a naysayer, without presenting the better method.

 

 

 

Only if left unchallenged (challenges obviously threaten you). Like if you or others want to use music ABX DBT as a scientific test for perception of complex musical experiences, then show me the quality measures of that test's performance. I keep on asking but I don't get the references, just the same unsubstantiated reliance on music ABX DBT tests. I mean surely you wouldn't use a non calibrated non validated tool in your work would you ? That would be pseudoscience...."a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method".

 

And your better alternative is???????????????????????

[SoundAndMotion]

.... no simple example comes to mind, .

Oh, here's one: If you get a grant from the American Cancer Society to study the health effects of nicotine, and you find:

1. There is a slight reduction in the rate of stress-related disease (stroke, high blood pressure)

2. There is a slight increase in incidence of impotence.

If you sorta forget to publish 1., then it may benefit society, but it's dishonest. Kind of like telling your wife her butt-ugly new dress "beautifully brings out the color of her eyes". Not fully honest, but there may be "societal" benefits when the dress comes off... ;-)

[PeterSt]

With that ugly butt ? hmm ...

[PeterSt]

I actually start to wonder why I have no contribution to this all; I just can't grab the subject. Possibly this is because I see dishonesty in being religious.

So for example, if I see people seriously worship The Buddha, and which can happen many times per day and in various places, then when I see the same people outside in the market place etc, somehow they are different people.

I too am a different person when being in the Temple as a tourist and have to behave like the normal inhabitants.

 

So I think I just can not put myself in the place of the religious (as a born Catholic behaving very well as an atheist) and thus I can't judge any difference between the both groups either. Maybe I wonder how others can ?

[PeterSt]

Or another kind of response :

 

If I observe a change in sound, I won't rest before I found the cause and can explain it. I would reason the hell out of me if necessary (and which often happens, just en public in my own forum). If I would be the religious person, then in one of those worlds I would have serious problems. So assumed the reasoning is part of my life, how would I go about with the "scientific" (sorry !) reasoning about God and all. And the other way around : if I had to leave the reasoning behind me, how would I go about with my audio stuff ? Answer (just because I surely can give that answer) : no-where. Maybe I would make some progress over the years, but it would fairly much be based on coincidence.

 

Peter

[SoundAndMotion]

... Possibly this is because I see dishonesty in being religious.

So for example, if I see people seriously worship The Buddha, and which can happen many times per day and in various places, then when I see the same people outside in the market place etc, somehow they are different people.

I too am a different person when being in the Temple as a tourist and have to behave like the normal inhabitants.

 

I don't believe, but compared to many, I live a relatively low-sin life (personal choice, not a church's). I have relatives who, according to their churches' rules, really sin a lot! But they go to confession and tell me they're going to heaven and I'm going to hell.

 

So I think I just can not put myself in the place of the religious (as a born Catholic behaving very well as an atheist) and thus I can't judge any difference between the both groups either. Maybe I wonder how others can ?

But if you ignore religion and replace it with the idea of faith vs. proof vs. agnosticism, how do you see the roles for audiophiles?

[SoundAndMotion]

Or another kind of response :

 

If I observe a change in sound, I won't rest before I found the cause and can explain it. I would reason the hell out of me if necessary (and which often happens, just en public in my own forum). If I would be the religious person, then in one of those worlds I would have serious problems. So assumed the reasoning is part of my life, how would I go about with the "scientific" (sorry !) reasoning about God and all. And the other way around : if I had to leave the reasoning behind me, how would I go about with my audio stuff ? Answer (just because I surely can give that answer) : no-where. Maybe I would make some progress over the years, but it would fairly much be based on coincidence.

 

Peter

Oh, just saw this. I see no problem with people adhering to reason but also having faith. A scientist (regardless of titles, you, PeterSt, have the need to know the truth about audio, like a scientist) can put faith where reason can't go, and not let faith replace reason. I'm no expert on the bible, for example, but I think there are internal inconsistencies. These are easily waved away by recognizing humans wrote all the texts and even "inspired, enlightened" humans are fallible. A religious scientist can say God "planned" the whole thing: big bang, evolution... etc. and the writers of the bible misunderstood the technical details.

I'm curious, but don't need to know what happened before the big bang... I just accept that the laws of physics tell us what happened after.