God and the Audiophiles

[Priaptor]

Sorry to go political here, HOWEVER, I am one of those "evil conservatives" who is always amazed at how those on the other side who claim to be secular and scoff at those who believe in things like religion (the "flat earthers" although I guess now that Hillary has invoked the Bible as the most influential book in her life we may see a Renaissance if you will of "belief"), etc YET ignore statistics and outcomes when it comes to their inane programs and will fight to the death to keep them intact despite ALL the evidence to the contrary. A simple example of course is education. BUT Progressives belief systems allows them to rationalize why doing the same dumb thing over and over again should continue no matter the evidence to the contrary.

 

The point being is that this discussion regarding audio can be applied to every part of life and we all just rationalize when "subjectivity" is acceptable to justify our own reality.

[christopher3393]

As the OP, I'd like to make a friendly request here.

My question was whether those who tend towards secularism also tend towards requiring evidence to validate what people hear in their audio systems.

I'd love to get people's opinions about that.

Thanks,

Joel

 

With this reformulation of the opening question I would answer yes. I wonder whether the stronger emotional reactions could be due to stronger positions than we have discussed at this point; namely, anti-theist and anti-religious positions?

 

Antitheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Antireligion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Would make more sense of the power of emotion if a person saw parallels with something that they strongly stand against?

 

Would be interesting to add these to the poll. On the other hand, I surrendered to the temptation to vote for the deva bunnies. I don't really fit any of the other options.

[TimArruda]

What I find most sad about this post Priaptor, is that one could just replace "evil conservatives" with "evil liberals", and change the references accordingly and it would *absolutely* still be spot on. Ignorance and stupidity is equal opportunity when looking at American politics.

 

Sorry to go political here, HOWEVER, I am one of those "evil conservatives" who is always amazed at how those on the other side who claim to be secular and scoff at those who believe in things like religion (the "flat earthers" although I guess now that Hillary has invoked the Bible as the most influential book in her life we may see a Renaissance if you will of "belief"), etc YET ignore statistics and outcomes when it comes to their inane programs and will fight to the death to keep them intact despite ALL the evidence to the contrary. A simple example of course is education. BUT Progressives belief systems allows them to rationalize why doing the same dumb thing over and over again should continue no matter the evidence to the contrary.

 

The point being is that this discussion regarding audio can be applied to every part of life and we all just rationalize when "subjectivity" is acceptable to justify our own reality.

[sandyk]

If my hearing is not OK (which happens) then I am anxious to demo the system to an auditioner. So no matter I know that all should be fine because yesterday it was, I have "no faith" at all in such a situation. The proof is lacking ...

 

Peter

I can truly relate to that. I need to watch the mannerisms of the friend(s) for reassurance that everything is as it should be.

In my case, I often take a little added BP medication just before their arrival when this is happening, and it usually corrects, or improves the hearing problem.

 

Regards

Alex

[Priaptor]

What I find most sad about this post Priaptor, is that one could just replace "evil conservatives" with "evil liberals", and change the references accordingly and it would *absolutely* still be spot on. Ignorance and stupidity is equal opportunity when looking at American politics.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[wakibaki]

What is Cargo Cult Science?

 

This was a phrase coined by Richard Feynmann. From wikipedia:-

 

"Cargo cult science refers to practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method. The term was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology."

 

Here's what Feynmann said, taken from his book,

 

"In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land."

 

Subjectivist audiophiles want to do science without the evidence.

 

Lets face it - there is no evidence apart from blind test evidence, there isn't even consensus among subjectivists. So they have no objective towards which to progress a design.

 

No objective for subjectivists.

 

Words can sometimes transcend simple meanings.

 

This is why there are no honest subjectivist designers. And by that I mean that those designers I see here pandering to subjectivist audiophile opinion with no substantial evidence to support their claims are dishonest.

 

Anyway. I would suggest a subjectivist audiophile is a member of a cult. This is the relationship between God and audiophilia. Some might say that it's the worship of Mammon.

 

This really makes things difficult, because it is probably anti-Christian, not that I'm a Christian, but I know how fussy they can be about such things.

[petaluma]

What I find most sad about this post Priaptor, is that one could just replace "evil conservatives" with "evil liberals", and change the references accordingly and it would *absolutely* still be spot on. Ignorance and stupidity is equal opportunity when looking at American politics.

 

Tim

 

+1, we in the middle are trying to prevent Rome burning while the extremes have a fiddle off.........

[Priaptor]

Tim

 

+1, we in the middle are trying to prevent Rome burning while the extremes have a fiddle off.........

 

Yup. You hit the nail on the head. The entitled at the very top and the 60 million getting their entitlements at the bottom and screw everyone in between. You try all you want fiddling to prevent it but there ain't no one listening.

[Priaptor]

What is Cargo Cult Science?

 

This was a phrase coined by Richard Feynmann. From wikipedia:-

 

"Cargo cult science refers to practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method. The term was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology."

 

Here's what Feynmann said, taken from his book,

 

"In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land."

 

Subjectivist audiophiles want to do science without the evidence.

 

Lets face it - there is no evidence apart from blind test evidence, there isn't even consensus among subjectivists. So they have no objective towards which to progress a design.

 

No objective for subjectivists.

 

Words can sometimes transcend simple meanings.

 

This is why there are no honest subjectivist designers. And by that I mean that those designers I see here pandering to subjectivist audiophile opinion with no substantial evidence to support their claims are dishonest.

 

Anyway. I would suggest a subjectivist audiophile is a member of a cult. This is the relationship between God and audiophilia. Some might say that it's the worship of Mammon.

 

This really makes things difficult, because it is probably anti-Christian, not that I'm a Christian, but I know how fussy they can be about such things.

 

So how do, in your objectivist way measure what is "scientifically correct" to an individual's amygdala?

 

So by your and others perspective, subjectivity is wrong if one's amygdala is telling them they like what they hear IF it doesn't have a flat frequency response or some other measurement you may deem proper.

 

The gear and music are secondary to the "subjectivity" of one's enjoyment no matter what the graphs show or how the equipment measures.

 

Incidentally I am not Christian but what are they fussy about???

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Paul, no worries. I was a bit disingenuous in asking the question. I have my opinion on what constitutes a pseudoscientist …….As a few posters have stated its generally not a positive term with which to label someone which fits my concept of the term......

I have already given my understanding of the term based on several *independent* definitions. It is most definitively not a positive term to describe someone's *practices* and this is how I have intentionally applied it.

 

My point, as you are well aware, is that you use it [pseudoscience] as a term of dismissal, rather than addressing the content of the argument you oppose

 

Indeed yes, pseudoscience is a term of dismissal. However contrary to your next statement it does totally address the content of the argument when redressing people presenting findings or conclusions as "scientific" when they are certainly not.

 

in quite the same way you admit to using the comically ironic term "flat-earther". This is rather similar to how people on the right use the words "communist" and "class war" to avoid having to address any genuine grievances raised with regard to social inequality.

 

Flat earthers is not a term I "admit" to using, it is a term I endorse when used to describe the pseudoscience (see above) and yes comically ironic (but let's just say we have a different take on why).

 

 

When that failed with me,

 

The only "failure" was when you resorted to the ad hominem attack which quickly escalated as you lost more control.

 

 

 

(nationality ≠ race)

 

So now you seem to be saying slurs about nationalities eg like Australians are ok because "(nationality ≠ race)". Technically "Australians", the indigenous kind, are a race.

 

 

instances where I have "want[ed] to use music ABX DBT as a scientific test for perception of complex musical experiences" ...That number, to avoid any ambiguity, is absolutely zero.

Well I said "you or others". I do however seem to recall you defending music ABX DBT and a particular conversation when challenged you stated it was the best thing available (as if that makes it acceptable). More to the point, are you now saying music ABX DBT is scientifically invalid, agreeing that it (currently) lacks the quality performance measures to be used by any reputable scientist eg sensitivity, speificity, reliability, validity, known true/false positives, known true/false negatives, positive and negative predictive values etc ? Yes or No ?

 

These are dishonest debating tactics you deploy against people who you for some reason perceive are on a different side or are somehow your enemy.

 

You are mistaken and wildly presumptuous in thinking I perceive people as my enemy. The "enemy" may be sloppy science, arrogance….

 

"Dishonest debating tactics" - complete load of bullocks ! There is nothing dishonest whatsoever about pointing out irrational poorly conceived science being peddled to further anti-audiophile sentiment. What may be considered dishonest is those who should know better remaining silent thereby providing implicit endorsement.

 

Speaking of "should know better" ,

The differences that were so subtle that it took two years of training to be able to reliably identify by ear are easily measurable with other instrumentation. In other words, the instruments have a better sensitivity than the human ear.

…..

Your view of things requires many assumptions, among them: (a) we have a complete understanding of all aspects of sound that can be perceived by humans, (b) we have a complete understanding of how sounds are internally processed, interpreted and perceived in our ears/brains, © the measurement devices currently available completely and accurately measure all aspects of sound that our brains interpret and perceive, and (d) we know precisely what the measurements for all these variables should be.

 

 

Do you honestly not have anything better to do with your time?

 

My time encouraging more scholarly debate is far better than your time spent in sarcastic ridicule, ad hominem attacks, absurdum ad Reductio and other such tactics.

 

You may also wish to consider that your use of sarcastic ridicule is hurtful to some and intimidating to others. I have had a number of private emails to this effect from people starting from 3 years ago and up to last week. They shall remain unnamed of course, so you may chose to ignore it. I have also read what I would deem quite angry comments on this forum at your use of sarcasm notwithstanding your advocates leap to the humour defence. It still makes one wonder about the feelings of the victims though. Oddly, and arguably not a behaviour that should be modelled, I have tried to return a little sarcasm your way. I concede you are supremely more sarcastic, however it does appear you can dish it out better than you can take it.

 

 

Why do you need to make all this stuff up? Have you no sense of honesty?

 

I don't and yes, respectively to your two questions.

[kumakuma]

So now you seem to be saying slurs about nationalities eg like Australians are ok because "(nationality ≠ race)". Technically "Australians", the indigenous kind, are a race.

 

On this issue, you have accused Bill of making racist slurs several times in this thread. Do you any evidence of this? If not, I suggest that an apology is in order.

[christopher3393]

kmkm, I think there was a legitimate misunderstanding here. What was offered as humor about Australians as a nation was taken as ridicule of the aboriginal or indigenous Australians.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Sometimes his "humour" can just be sarcastic slur. It remains my opinion.

[kumakuma]

kmkm, I think there was a legitimate misunderstanding here. What was offered as humor about Australians as a nation was taken as ridicule of the aboriginal or indigenous Australians.

 

I was referring to this comment and the ones that followed:

 

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

 

The aboriginal / indigenous Australian angle is something new that David has introduced in his attempt to paint Bill with a racist brush.

[kumakuma]

Sometimes his "humour" can just be sarcastic slur. It remains my opinion.

 

What does this have to do with anything? Calling someone sarcastic is not the same as saying someone makes racist slurs.

[Daudio]

audiophile debates...

... audio debates are also about the fundamental inequality in the distribution of ... high-end hi-fi gear... the haves rave on and the have-nots rant on... understandably, rather emotionally, here... something to do with someone always having to have a bigger cigar and all that... acquire, then measure, before listening to esoteric systems... preferably together, though not necessarily naked (or shaven).

there is also a belief by some (myself included) that not everything can be measured... such as how far an audiophile is willing to go to justify his doctrine... we must have faith in what we experience. and to have faith means to believe that not every audiophile in this civilised forum is an audio-fool... please accept humble apologies for this embarrassing post.

 

Best post I've seen in a long time !!

 

Thanks, (what is your first name ?)

 

More please

[Daudio]

My time encouraging more scholarly debate is far better than your time spent in sarcastic ridicule, ad hominem attacks, absurdum ad Reductio and other such tactics.

 

You may also wish to consider that your use of sarcastic ridicule is hurtful to some and intimidating to others. I have had a number of private emails to this effect from people starting from 3 years ago and up to last week. They shall remain unnamed of course, so you may chose to ignore it. I have also read what I would deem quite angry comments on this forum at your use of sarcasm notwithstanding your advocates leap to the humour defence. It still makes one wonder about the feelings of the victims though. Oddly, and arguably not a behaviour that should be modelled, I have tried to return a little sarcasm your way. I concede you are supremely more sarcastic, however it does appear you can dish it out better than you can take it.

 

+1. I don't get the supposed reputation for wit. All I see is context-free sarcasm, often slipping into bitterness, or unintelligible. For his supposed 'scientific' occupation, the arguments and comments would be laughable, if they weren't so ugly

 

OTOH, he has very good OSX advice. Probably should just leave it at that !

[kumakuma]

+1. I don't get the supposed reputation for wit. All I see is context-free sarcasm, often slipping into bitterness, or unintelligible. For his supposed 'scientific' occupation, the arguments and comments would be laughable, if they weren't so ugly

 

OTOH, he has very good OSX advice. Probably should just leave it at that !

 

Yes, Bill can be an ass but I don't see how this makes it right to say he makes racist slurs.

[wakibaki]

Incidentally I am not Christian but what are they fussy about???

 

I think the technical name is idolatry. The 1st. commandment.

 

I am the Lord thy God, Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

 

Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

 

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

So how do, in your objectivist way measure what is "scientifically correct" to an individual's amygdala?

 

So by your and others perspective, subjectivity is wrong if one's amygdala is telling them they like what they hear IF it doesn't have a flat frequency response or some other measurement you may deem proper.

 

The gear and music are secondary to the "subjectivity" of one's enjoyment no matter what the graphs show or how the equipment measures.

 

You misunderstand me. You must. I certainly don't understand you. How can subjectivity be 'wrong'? I can't help but be subjective. That's the human condition.

 

I just recognise that in some circumstances my subjective impressions alone, and even a number of agreeing subjective impressions, are insufficient evidence on which to base a conclusion with general application.

[wgscott]

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

 

If this is true, why is it you cannot seem to produce the evidence, for all your blustering?

 

 

Let me up the ante a bit here:

 

If you can produce the evidence, I will personally apologize to everyone whom you deem I have grossly offended via deployment of sarcastic remarks, and then I will close my account here at CA. You will be rid of me forever. All you have to do is produce evidence for your libelous claim.

[esldude]

If this is true, why is it you cannot seem to produce the evidence, for all your blustering?

 

 

Because Bill, it is a subjective thing. You wouldn't understand.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

If this is true, why is it you cannot seem to produce the evidence, for all your blustering?

You did use the libel word so decided not to pursue it. So why did you feel compelled to make your (nationality ≠ race) comment.

 

Forget that and answer this

you will find as many instances where I have "want[ed] to use music ABX DBT as a scientific test for perception of complex musical experiences" …That number, to avoid any ambiguity, is absolutely zero.

 

Are you now saying music ABX DBT is scientifically invalid, agreeing that it (currently) lacks the quality performance measures to be used by any reputable scientist eg sensitivity, speificity, reliability, validity, known true/false positives, known true/false negatives, positive and negative predictive values etc ? Yes or No ?

[Priaptor]

I think the technical name is idolatry. The 1st. commandment.

 

 

 

 

 

You misunderstand me. You must. I certainly don't understand you. How can subjectivity be 'wrong'? I can't help but be subjective. That's the human condition.

 

I just recognise that in some circumstances my subjective impressions alone, and even a number of agreeing subjective impressions, are insufficient evidence on which to base a conclusion with general application.

 

I guess it depends on circumstance and claim.

 

Personally I think this whole thread is irrelevant if one is just looking to enjoy the music on a system they find "subjectively" pleasing.

 

On the other hand if the person is interested in convincing others that his/her system sounds "better" or most realistically reproduces the "live experience" (whatever that means as that is subject to a infinite number of variables all on its own) based on "subjective" experience I get the point of those who oppose.

[wgscott]

You did use the libel word so decided not to pursue it. So why did you feel compelled to make your (nationality ≠ race) comment.

 

Implicit in your false, spurious and libelous accusation "racist slur yet about Australians" was the idea that if I had said something anti-Austrailian (which you and I both know I did not) is the assumption that nationality and race are synonymous. They are not.

 

Forget that and answer this

 

I have absolutely no intention of forgetting it.

[esldude]

You did use the libel word so decided not to pursue it. So why did you feel compelled to make your (nationality ≠ race) comment.

 

Forget that and answer this

 

 

Are you now saying music ABX DBT is scientifically invalid, agreeing that it (currently) lacks the quality performance measures to be used by any reputable scientist eg sensitivity, speificity, reliability, validity, known true/false positives, known true/false negatives, positive and negative predictive values etc ? Yes or No ?

 

 

I can clearly see the racist implications and how they lead directly to the question about ABX DBT's. And then the yes or no question clearly follows right along with the thinking to discern the level of racism inherent in one's position. {Typed with a puzzled look and asking oneself, "you have got to be kidding" while feeling somehow he isn't.} Maybe things really do rotate backwards below the equator as they go down the drain {wondering if this is somehow a racist statement as well}