My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[Shimei]

I have a <rant>! Actually, I feel a little like writing, 

 

Kinda ironic subject matter, no? I mean objectivist believe truth exists outside themselves and subjectivist believe no truth exists outside themselves. Pretty much the societal issues present between two parties regarding objective absolute camps vs post modernism or relativism. The irony is in history the rise of fundamentalism came about in order to combat post modernism and relativism. There are fundamentalist in more areas than just religion. I suppose any source text be it bible, constitution, data from whatever may be treated in fundamental like fashion. Just humorously ironic that some objectivist reject the truth claims of others with a knee jerk reaction without even consideration. 

 

Applied to whatever area of subject matter perhaps agreeing that truth exists might be a foundational ground on which two sides may begin? Story time, sat through a long debate once as two parties argued whether truth exists. The one debater against truth existing made his case that there is no truth and then the debater for truth existing made his case. Just when everyone thought the debate was over the advocate for truth then asked the audience to vote for the person they thought won the debate. I chuckled, because obviously one would only vote for the person they thought closer to the truth. No matter who a person voted for was clear evidence that everyone believed truth exists. 

 

Regarding the subjectivisit's approach to truth being experiential or even advocating for relativism I'm reminded that even Einstein was appalled when learning that people were misapplying his theory of relativity [relativism] in an area of absolutes, I refer to morality. Like truth some people believe moral absolutes do not exists so why would anyone expect them to behave morally and/or ethically? Nonetheless civilly? Just a little FYI, in order to combat a person that doesn't believe in absolutes in the area of morality the best line of defense is an offense. Simply steal the wallet out of their back pocket. If they get upset and say that's wrong simply say not to me it isn't. 

 

I'm curious how many subjectivist here believe truth is relative to an individual? That is, based on experiences etc? I suppose if a person gets ahead in the world and lying works for them then lying is good and advances them in the world. I wonder how long it takes before someone begins believing their own lies to become self deceived? Snake oil salesman come in various forms, but this I know, unfortunately, in today's world the more a person speaks with conviction the more others believe them. That is independent of whether the subject is true or false. I mean in a way even if something is true and a person doesn't demonstrate conviction then how are they believable? Likewise, do we believe something based on how much they believe? 

 

All these arguments or debates I read. What is the objective in debate? In areas of debate which pertain to religious truth the objective is not to win the debate. The opponent is not the adversary. Falsehood is the adversary. The true objective in debate ought to bring the audience as well as the opponent closer to the truth. 

 

Sometimes to see the truth one must abandon the position from which they see and move to another perspective. The elephant in the room each blind man only could feel a small part of the whole. Yet objective truth exists by one that sees the entire subject matter. 

 

Why am I bringing up all this stuff? Because I betcha that the objectivism vs subjectivism doesn't only affect persons here in the subject area of audio equipment but runs deep. 

 

10 hours ago, ShawnC said:

I would love to see some sort of absolute truths or bullet points about audio/computer engineering per se.  Like digital cables can't sound different and here is why. There could be an entire encyclopedia of sorts on all aspects of audio.  This could be a reference for those to research and learn.  This would be a massive undertaking but could be used to direct people to the information that are being discussed.

 

Another thought would be place here that has direct links to papers, books ect.. on these subjects.  Like digital cables can't sound different, here's the link to why and a great discussion can be found here.  Again some sort of alphabetical sorting would help.  The objectivists, I would imagine, since for many this is their background, should have numerous resources to direct us to these links and or maybe they have a better way of describing to us why these things are what they are.   

 

The forums here are great, but I'm all about the New Front Page Content that has dramatically increased over the past year, great Job @The Computer Audiophile

 

 Hi Shawn, 

 

What I wrote was inspired by your writings. Of course in the areas of science there are peer reviews. I am not a scientist but I imagine any truly credible scientist follows a scientific method which is based on observability, testability, and repeatability. Likewise, in areas of theology there are processes for interpretation that falls into the area of Hermeneutics which entail basic principles and methods when subject matter is incomprehensible. Point is, basic principles and methods have to be established. 

 

Last thought, I imagine this area of study in audio is no different than other sciences or even religion. Macro Evolutionist for example study the fossil record, the data, and come up with their own narrative. How in the world can other scientist which are Creationist come up with totally different conclusions based on the same data resulting in completely different narrations of stick figures? Then we have other areas such climate cooling, warming, and now change when nobody actually observed, tested, and repeated their findings. In science and religion the study of origins is not observable, testable and repeatable. How can any of these areas be considered truly science? Credibility, like the religious fanatics which appeal to horrible theological camps that keep crying end of world how many times does one camp need be wrong before losing all credibility? Hasn't anyone read "Henny Penny"?

 

Good luck fellas in finding the truth ya'll seek to share with others. As for me I believe truth exists and is absolutely beautiful. Like a painter that can look into the sunset and discern the various hues and repeat them upon a canvas into his art. Or even a musician that may hear a melody and pluck a note from out. These things require skill and do not just come naturally to everyone. I imagine both objectivist and subjectivist may find themselves with distorted sight and hearing. Good luck in perceiving what you're hearing and ultimately attempting to convey to others. As a writer do we hate or trust the reader for them to decide? 

 

On that note enjoy,

William

</rant>

 

[Shimei]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Well said. 

 

For many people it's about the journey just as much as the destination. We like to listen to cables, as it provides an opportunity for listening enjoyment if nothing else and possibly a good conversation among friends with shared interests. 

 

I was considering joining a local audio club. I've been told by a member of one that they as you shared have casual conversations while having a beer or brandy during listening of a member's system each go around. 

 

The way some people here talk to one another. I'm a little hesitant now because if in-person someone stated something like they do here I'd toss them out of the house onto their head. I guess, it isn't always what we say but how we say it? 

 

Having a good conversation while listening to an enjoyable system among friends with shared interests. That appeals to me! 

[Shimei]

Just now, tmtomh said:

 

You make a very good point. Fortunately I think few if any members here would talk in person the way they do in the more heated arguments here - the internet makes us behaving in appalling ways. There is nothing better at diffusing tension than a face to face interaction.

 

Totally agree and nice meeting you!

 

I appreciate those that masterfully deescalate a situation quickly rather than provoke more emotion. 

 

When the subject becomes heated and I exhibit difficulty separating my emotion from the subject or topic matter I tend to leave the discussion for a cool down period. 

 

Then through introspection attempt to understand how and why my emotional responses. Granted, I cannot control what comes out of another's mouth but my own reactions should meet the standard I hold dear. 

 

Have been enjoying your responses and posts @tmtomh. 

 

Enjoy,

William

[Shimei]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

This New York Times piece by Richard Bernstein appeared almost a dozen years ago. The growing cowardice of online anonymity

 

Hi Allan, 

 

Thanks for sharing the article. Haven't read the article yet [will momentarily] while commenting on the title which I know I shouldn't. The article title is rather ironic coming from the New York Times when hiding behind anonymous sources now-a-days. Don't ya think? 

 

Note: Now I've read the article and think it even more ironic especially in consideration of the 1st amendment. Was it the intent of America's forefather to ensure the right of the People to lie, slander, bear false witness, gossip, blaspheme, etc in the name of the press? Yet the author complains about the anonymity the internet provides as the free press does in ensuring the anonymity of certain persons whistleblowers etc. Given the source and/or reference of the principles in which our country's foundation was laid if only truth was emphasized to the degree of endearment in which everyone cherishes. 

 

I mean can you imagine if certain principles were "reestablished" in modern society? That is, if a witness is found bearing falsehood, slandering, etc the very same penalty in which the innocent party faced must be applied to the false witness. Can you imagine the impact upon our society? I imagine many would not "say" as much as they do without actual proof or 1st hand testimony. 

 

Lastly, there was a movie I saw years ago in which the name escapes me now. An alien race observed the earth and experimented on people as long as recorded time. Among the aliens existed a certain ethical standard if one brought up a question etc that individual alien was accountable and responsible for finding the answer and if they failed they were severely punished. The very burden an unanswered question had on the aliens was dreadful. 

 

Imagine that, a principle debaters should know. If you make an assertion, statement, etc it is your responsibility, that is, the burden of proof is on you and not your opponent to supply evidence etc of your position. Too many times in the audio circle I am running into people making sensational claims yet they offer no clear objective proof. They then shift the burden upon other people's shoulders even going so far as to sell their products so others may test them. 

[Shimei]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This is certainly a popular way to look at it for many, but completely misses the point of why many are here. People are here to enjoy a shared hobby and have fun along the way. There should be no burden of proof for anyone who just wants to hang out and talk to friends about something s/he enjoys. Talk about buzz killing. 

 

The new Objective-Fi area is perfect for those who think proof must be provided. Find a claim in the other areas of the forum, then demand proof in the obj forum. Live and let live. 

 

In addition, to suggest a consumer has the engineering burden of proof for anything is a bit over the top. 

 

Wit all due respect of course @Shimei :~)

 

Gotcha, the current or new sub-forum makes more sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification. 

 

Regarding the burden of proof I really appreciated the data a past automobile manufacturer brought to my attention. I purchased a 1997 Callaway Impala SS back in the day. Lots of sensational claims were made. Here's the kicker, Callaway [a division at the time of GM] received one Impala SS from the GM assembly line. They worked their magic, pulled the engine and put their slug into its place along with other modifications. The objective data was supplied [dyno runs], that is, before delivery to the dealer I picked up the car from they actually ran the car around a race track test facility included the speed and times as well as drag strip information to me the new owner. 

 

I suppose audio manufacturers actually test their gear? Is it really asking too much from them to post various signal graphs and charts? That is, rather than relying on a reviewer the manufacturer simply supplies the data in which reviewers may verify. Or is there Mr. Guy Tester that sits in every room and when you hit the power button on the remote his mouth opens and tells everyone in the room how the system sounds? 🤣

 

Drives me insane that my Tektons aren't supplied with such data nor in the case of my amplifier. In my ideal audio world such data would be readily available as manufacturers are transparent about their products 😀

 

Enjoy,

William