Popular Post vmartell22 Posted December 9, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 9, 2019 Science is not a belief system - is the systematic activity that obtains and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. Framing the discussion of Science vs. religion in terms of opposing belief systems is incorrect. Or to put it simply, gravity does not care if you believe in it or not. You will fall. v Ralf11, pkane2001, EdmontonCanuck and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment
vmartell22 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 10 hours ago, tapatrick said: There is plenty of philosophical discussion that science is a belief system... Of course - that's exactly what I said. And that is the expression of one side of the argument trying to change the framework... so they can have an argument... otherwise... well... Again, gravity does not care if you don't believe in it... you will fall. But the reaction to your post if correct - veering off topic - last thing I will say on the matter. v wgscott 1 Link to comment
Popular Post vmartell22 Posted December 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2019 21 hours ago, tapatrick said: No offence meant and I'm not trying to have an argument. I'm not sure what it would mean to veer off topic on this thread! 😱 Of course you are correct about gravity, I'll be taking the lift leaving work today not jumping out the window... Context is everything however. In relation to the topic of this thread only I responded to your statement 'Science is not a belief system' as I am genuinely interested in how any belief whether defined by oneself or others as 'scientific', 'objective', 'subjective' etc frames how we see the world and what the motive is when we express ourselves. I have met very few people who are honest about this but maybe I don't get out enough 🤣. Just my thing... which I have spent a life time studying. In the interest of this thread the arguments over the usual audiophile issues (dare I say subjectivist/Objectivist 😅) are not very interesting to me except the first few times I read them. What I find of interest is that in a conversation in person or online, there are different contexts being held, expressed and offered by each contributor. We affirm, bond with, react for or against whatever is our preference. When we are not understood or listened to seems to raise the thermometer pretty rapidly. Flexibility, openness, not being fixed, not needing to be right is hard won. I think a question has been genuinely posed in this thread about how to solve the riddle of conflict which is small potatoes on here between individuals in the grander scheme of things but the same underlying issues are of increasing concern in our hyper connected/disconnected world and in larger political social arenas when fuelled by power... Like I said my thing... 🙏 Indeed - lemme try to summarize in this context - because you have a point 1.- I think the general idea of the editorial is that audiophiles are requesting the same respect that, let's say, the wine hobby/industry - That is, if I hear it (or taste it) then that's it, that is my take on it and I am contributing valuable insights. Because ( and hope I am not wrong) that seems to be the general aim of the audiophile practice (at least the subjective one, which seems to include most of the industry and its consumers). Might add, though, that wine industry is also on very iffy grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine) So again, what is trying be said here, is "leave us alone to appreciate the products on our terms" IMHO. 2. - That said, these are engineered devices. The process has even less variability than wine production (which is more engineering/science these days, than art). So to attribute characteristics that are not part of a design ("musicality" for example) is really strange. And connecting from that, an evaluation like that relies on the senses. Human senses; fallible, easily skewered, etc. After all, it was our senses that told the ancients the earth was flat. 3.- Now here is the gist of the argument. The thing that has caused more bits being used on the net than almost anything except pr0n! When the reviewer issues a statement that contradicts scientific facts , people will comment. It did not use to be that way. Before the interwebs, the counterargument was not aired in the trade magazines; in that volume, of course. Magazines did publish dissenting opinions, but usually in the middle of the convinced choir, with no reply or long discussion. The internet changed that. 4.- And that's where the argument gets ugly. Many accusations from one side to the other. For example, and this addresses directly a point in the post I am replying to, the implication that the scientific side relies on religious-like "belief" in science is incorrect. Science is facts and I have seen in general in most of the posts a solid understanding of the scientific facts necessary for the argument. A lot of knowledgeable engineers/scientists in this forum. 5. Last, I will get personal. Why do I get into it? Believe it or not, it has to do with the zeitgeist and the current political climate. Lots of anti-scientific thinking right now, from anti-vaxxers to flat earthers, climate change denial, etc. This is a direct attack on humanity. Yes, flat earthers, for example are ridiculous and relatively innocuous. Yet , such promotion of anti-science still has a detrimental effect. It promotes fear of knowledge and education, to the point that in some realms, educated persons and scientists are "an elite" that is not to be trusted etc. And in order to fight against that (because it really needs to be fought) I actively oppose it anytime I see it. And yes, it can be even dangerous, IRL. But because the stakes are pretty high we really need to do it. And I consider, $100,000/ft cables, Ethernet cables with sound, $200,000 power "conditioners", etc. part of the anti-science idea - the ultimate example of magical thinking. And a waste of resources, whether you can afford it or not. So I get into it. Well Not anymore. Almost. Obviously, nobody has noticed my absence, but until now, it has been a while since I got into it, in this forum and others. And after this, will probably be a while to be back. Probably only if I have a question or problem. Because, while I still think I am right in my assessment, also realized that audiophilia is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Only got into this thread because it popped very prominently in my news feed. But I will continue and I do promise to try to live and let live. v tapatrick, Ralf11, pkane2001 and 2 others 2 1 2 Link to comment
vmartell22 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Albrecht said: Are you saying that there are people who are assembling audio system(s) to NOT listen to?, - but just have it sitting there idle? <3 v Link to comment
Popular Post vmartell22 Posted December 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, Norton said: Except, there is no divide, because in practice (as opposed to a theoretical construct for fuelling online arguments) there is no such thing as audio “objectivism”. I’ve never seen any self-described objectivist actually explain the process (with the supporting data) whereby their objectivism resulted in them making system choices that they wouldn’t have made had they adopted an subjective approach. In truth, if we enjoy listening to music through audio equipment, we are by definition all subjectivists (the clue is in the word “enjoy”). https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/yogi_berra_141506 v crenca and kumakuma 1 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now