Article: Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

[DuckToller]

55 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

But it must be noted that one of the major differences we appear to have is over your claim that "scientific approach" is "just another option of opinion." That stretches the meaning of the word "opinion" to the point where the term becomes meaningless, and obscures important differences between different kinds of claims and knowledge.

Hi Tom,

thank you for reading and responding to my posting.
Pls excuse my language skills, it's obviouisly not my mother tongue and not only once Chris was completely puzzled about my phrasing 😉
... I feel the need to correctly adress the point ...

" why the supporter of "objectivism" and scientific approach are thinnly skinned when they feel further pushed away from the silver bullet to be just another option of opinion,"

This was not at all meant as personal opinion, but as an example how science is pushed aside in modern times (in my perception), which allows me to think of it as a more than understandbale reason for being thinnly skinned as a proponent of science.
I feel, when facts are announced to be just "another opinion" (i.e. in politics or public disscussions) we lose ad-hoc the quality of discurs, and the meaning of a factual world (for which I used the pictures of the mountain top and the submarine) is de-valued by (bad) intent.
That is utterly wrong in my opinion, but obviously an accepted discussion technique for "winners" about which I need to prepare my teenage son (to analyse and how to defend), because it has found its entrée in everyday life ...

 

you wrote:
"That's why confirmation bias, humans' poor auditory memory of fine details, and other subjective factors come into play - not because objectivists think subjectivists are idiots or because objectivists cannot tolerate different views, but rather because those factors rise in probability when no other possible factors are apparent. "
+1 for that
 

"In my ideal community beliefs and science can co-exits, based on accepting that the fabric of understanding the world has its home on the side of facts."

Best, Tom

 

[christopher3393]

Just an FYI: There is no such term as "radical subjectivism" in philosophy or any other academic field or significant thinker that I have been able to find in several years of occasionally researching this. It is, in my opinion, a fabrication of a forum member here, yet it is used as if it were a recognized concept. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be pointed to the sources I've missed.

 

But I strongly suspect it is b.s. If this member would like to share his background in study that led him to this, we could discuss his interpretations of these sources. My best guess is that they rely on a reading of a theological movement called "Radical Orthodoxy". If anyone wants to look into it, I suspect they'll find some similarities.

 

When it comes to this kind of grand cultural criticism that this member engages, I do wonder if his background and experience is sufficient to be making such strong claims about what members and the owner/moderator need to do to get woke.

 

Apologies for the OT.

[kennyb123]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Not only this, objective truth must bow to the demands of personality and "livelihood", and if it does not well as @kennyb123says it is the very definition of "evil".  That's radical subjectivism philosophically and in practice.

 

I give @kennyb123the Golden Finger Wagging award for equating objective truth with "evil":

 

 

Above @joelha mentioned that "From what you've written, it's hard to believe you're commenting on my article."  Likewise I said no such thing, so either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are attempting to "deflect and attack".

 

A good description of "deflect and attack" I pulled from an article: 

 

Here, the goal is to shift attention from what they are saying and doing to what you are saying and doing, where they never have to take responsibility for their toxic behavior or address anything you’re saying.

 

If you bring something up that you don’t like or find to be untrue and problematic, instead of addressing it or taking responsibility for it, they will quickly deflect and go into attack mode. This means they will use their toxic tactics to quickly shift attention from themselves and bring up something that you may or may not have said or done. Often to the degree where they try to always keep you on the defense by accusing you of all sorts of stuff, some of which includes the things they are actually doing themselves.

 

And if you make a mistake of actually trying to address it, you will get distracted from the initial issue and soon become overwhelmed by all the stuff that now you are expected to address and clarify. And do so to a person who doesn’t care about understanding you and is dedicated to mischaracterizing you in order to dominate and “win an argument.”

 

 

[joelha]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

I'd like your definition of vitriol - maybe you mean sarcasm?

For this forum, my examples of vitriol would include "dishonest", "lying", "shill" and other terms that discredit an individual or company.

 

Joel

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, joelha said:

If that's my honest experience, how does that destroy my credibility?

 

Just my opinion of course: your "honest experience" is riddled with assumptions and prejudices.

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, joelha said:

Yes, in the context of an audio hobby, subjectivism is o.k. and innocuous.

 

Just so you don't misunderstand the objectivist reaction to this statement:

 

WHATTTTT?!!!!!!!!!

 

Now, an objectivist will understand that there is a subjective element (it's what, 90% of the weight of the hobby?) but will not accept the status quo, radical subjectivism, any opinion = another in worth and truth, and "it's only audio so who cares if the industry leverges cheating, lying, and stealing in pursuit of its $ends$".  It is the latter that you are arguing for.

 

8 minutes ago, joelha said:

I never said objectivists have to accept subjectivism.

 

Yes you did, because you believe that anything less is the cause of strife and "religion" - you explicitly said this.  

 

9 minutes ago, joelha said:

Once again, I was explaining why I think the vitriol exists.

 

Your explanation is objectively in error.  You don't see what subjectivism or objectivism really are (or how you argue from a subjectivist premise), and thus you wrongly attribute the "vitriol" and every other aspect of the conflict to the wrong thing(s).  I would apologize but I don't apologize for the truth:  Your "understanding" is in error...

 

For a correct understanding, you could try Samuels suggestion and look at all this from a consumerist point of view...or you could take such a suggestion as a "war on Christmas" as our host would have it...LOL, this thread has been worth it just to read that!!

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Just an FYI: There is no such term as "radical subjectivism" in philosophy or any other academic field or significant thinker that I have been able to find in several years of occasionally researching this.

 

Perhaps yet another example of audiophiles being out there at the bleeding edge of (social) science...

[joelha]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Just my opinion of course: your "honest experience" is riddled with assumptions and prejudices.

Since you don't me, how do you know my prejudices?

 

Joel

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, joelha said:

Since you don't me, how do you know my prejudices?

 

I thought they were quite evident in your OP.  You believe you occupy the Moral High Ground compared to "objectivists".  You're nicer and less rude.  No?

[joelha]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I thought they were quite evident in your OP.  You believe you occupy the Moral High Ground compared to "objectivists".  You're nicer and less rude.  No?

I believe my comments on this site are generally nicer than the kinds of comments I've called out as the reason for my article.

 

I don't know the other people and so couldn't possibly compare myself to them . . . nor can you.

 

Joel

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, joelha said:

I believe my comments on this site are generally nicer than the kinds of comments I've called out as the reason for my article.

 

I don't know the other people and so couldn't possibly compare myself to them . . . nor can you.

 

I can certainly extrapolate from our little back-and-forth that you see your self as belonging to the more desirable group to be a member of.

 

I personally see it more like WOPR sees it: "the only winning move is not to play".

[Khill]

Ha! I own a Border Patrol SE DAC! What shit show that caused on forums. Guess what, it HANDS DOWN the most musical and enjoyable DAC I’ve had in my system...and it’s really not that close.

 

”Measurements...I don’t care about your measurements”!!!!!

 

🤣😂🤣😂🤣

[plissken]

32 minutes ago, joelha said:

For this forum, my examples of vitriol would include "dishonest", "lying", "shill" and other terms that discredit an individual or company.

 

Joel

 

So we are moving on to you being part of the definition police squad. You get to move the goal post where ever you deem fit?

 

 

[plissken]

I think the most offensive thing I've posted at AS is something about beating the subjectivist with the generic zip cord of logic. Even Superdad laughed at that. 

 

Also can I change my Forum name to Superdata just to be an unmitigated ass-hole (some already think this so) with every single post of mine?

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

Just an FYI: There is no such term as "radical subjectivism" in philosophy or any other academic field or significant thinker that I have been able to find in several years of occasionally researching this. It is, in my opinion, a fabrication of a forum member here, yet it is used as if it were a recognized concept. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be pointed to the sources I've missed.

 

But I strongly suspect it is b.s. If this member would like to share his background in study that led him to this, we could discuss his interpretations of these sources. My best guess is that they rely on a reading of a theological movement called "Radical Orthodoxy". If anyone wants to look into it, I suspect they'll find some similarities.

 

When it comes to this kind of grand cultural criticism that this member engages, I do wonder if his background and experience is sufficient to be making such strong claims about what members and the owner/moderator need to do to get woke.

 

Apologies for the OT.

 

 

How about Søren Kierkegaard?  (I get the feeling we've been through this before).

 

The term seems apt enough.  "Radical Feminism" is distinct from "Liberal Feminism" in that there are a certain set of assumptions that make it fundamentally different.

 

With subjectivism, the "radical" extreme is the proposition that "science is just another belief system", which we see is a common thread in the OP and in (for example) Creationism and right-wing climate-change denialism, or, more generally, that objective knowledge is non-existent, or at least unknowable.

 

Another candidate:  La Place.

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, plissken said:

I think the most offensive thing I've posted at AS is something about beating the subjectivist with the generic zip cord of logic. Even Superdad laughed at that. 

 

Also can I change my Forum name to Superdata just to be an unmitigated ass-hole (some already think this so) with every single post of mine?

 

I always thought the kitten in your avatar offset your alleged reputation for being coarse.  Hard to hate on a kitteh.

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I always thought the kitten in your avatar offset your alleged reputation for being coarse.  Hard to hate on a kitteh.

 

[kumakuma]

55 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Just an FYI: There is no such term as "radical subjectivism" in philosophy or any other academic field or significant thinker that I have been able to find in several years of occasionally researching this. It is, in my opinion, a fabrication of a forum member here, yet it is used as if it were a recognized concept. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be pointed to the sources I've missed.

 

Found this:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318159022_Kant's_Radical_Subjectivism_An_Introductory_Essay

 

And this book by the same author:

 

https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319438764

 

 

[tmtomh]

1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

Hi Tom,

thank you for reading and responding to my posting.
Pls excuse my language skills, it's obviouisly not my mother tongue and not only once Chris was completely puzzled about my phrasing 😉
... I feel the need to correctly adress the point ...

" why the supporter of "objectivism" and scientific approach are thinnly skinned when they feel further pushed away from the silver bullet to be just another option of opinion,"

This was not at all meant as personal opinion, but as an example how science is pushed aside in modern times (in my perception), which allows me to think of it as a more than understandbale reason for being thinnly skinned as a proponent of science.
I feel, when facts are announced to be just "another opinion" (i.e. in politics or public disscussions) we lose ad-hoc the quality of discurs, and the meaning of a factual world (for which I used the pictures of the mountain top and the submarine) is de-valued by (bad) intent.
That is utterly wrong in my opinion, but obviously an accepted discussion technique for "winners" about which I need to prepare my teenage son (to analyse and how to defend), because it has found its entrée in everyday life ...

 

you wrote:
"That's why confirmation bias, humans' poor auditory memory of fine details, and other subjective factors come into play - not because objectivists think subjectivists are idiots or because objectivists cannot tolerate different views, but rather because those factors rise in probability when no other possible factors are apparent. "
+1 for that
 

"In my ideal community beliefs and science can co-exits, based on accepting that the fabric of understanding the world has its home on the side of facts."

Best, Tom

 

 

Ah, I see - thank you for clarifying, and apologies for misinterpreting your position. I now see that we actually agree!

[crenca]

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Found this:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318159022_Kant's_Radical_Subjectivism_An_Introductory_Essay

 

And this book by the same author:

 

https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319438764

 

 

 

 

If Decartes is the grandfather of radical subjectivism, then Kant is the God Father.   The current unraveling of his (catagorical) detente between reality and the Cartesian self  is everywhere seen (culture, law, etc).

 

I'm surprised nobody has called me out for admitting that 90% of this hobby is subjective... 😱

[mansr]

1 hour ago, joelha said:

Since you don't me, how do you know my prejudices?

It doesn't take much effort when you wear them like a badge of honour.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

Just an FYI: There is no such term as "radical subjectivism" in philosophy or any other academic field or significant thinker that I have been able to find in several years of occasionally researching this. It is, in my opinion, a fabrication of a forum member here, yet it is used as if it were a recognized concept. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be pointed to the sources I've missed.

 

But I strongly suspect it is b.s. If this member would like to share his background in study that led him to this, we could discuss his interpretations of these sources. My best guess is that they rely on a reading of a theological movement called "Radical Orthodoxy". If anyone wants to look into it, I suspect they'll find some similarities.

 

When it comes to this kind of grand cultural criticism that this member engages, I do wonder if his background and experience is sufficient to be making such strong claims about what members and the owner/moderator need to do to get woke.

 

Apologies for the OT.

 

How hard did you look?

 

https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319438764

[tapatrick]

I miss the good days when we used clubs. Bloody Descarte...

[tapatrick]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

How hard did you look?

 

https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319438764

I bet my google is bigger than yours...

[tapatrick]

Peace pipe anyone. Bring your own combustibles.