Chris's Objective/Subjective moat seems one-sided

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

 The attitude that the most obnoxious objectivists I've encountered use is, essentially, that because "it is science" that everything they say is correct, and whenever they mention science, it invalidates any subjective impressions. It seems not to matter if an objectivist has zero qualifications, has never manufactured a product in his (I've never encountered a "her") life, or even done a science experiment outside of high school, "Science" is put forward like "It's God's will".

 

 

As I see it, the extremist Objectivist [sic} with an agenda is objective up to a point. That point appears to be where science and objectivity clashes with their faith based belief system.

 

The extremist subjectivist may reject science or reason as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing (to which I say fair enough).

 

Some objectivists, even when and IF correct, don't get that you can't use reason to argue a highly subjective person out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at. The same applies when extremist objectivists shift from science to sciencey, invoking science but serving up pseudoscience. You cannot reason them out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.

 

 

Quote

 This is because scientists, engineers, and so-called science can be wrong and, most importantly, science is almost entirely incomplete. The purpose of science is to develop greater understanding. It is not to belittle people with!

 

1+

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, Summit said:

22 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

As I see it, the extremist Objectivist [sic} with an agenda is objective up to a point. That point appears to be where science and objectivity clashes with their faith based belief system.

 

The extremist subjectivist may reject science or reason as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing (to which I say fair enough).

 

Some objectivists, even when and IF correct, don't get that you can't use reason to argue a highly subjective person out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at. The same applies when extremist objectivists shift from science to sciencey, invoking science but serving up pseudoscience. You cannot reason them out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.

 

 

 

 

Why is someone that are using their ears as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing to be label extremist subjectivist?

 

All subjectivists, it could be argued, use their ears as the most important determinant of what they are experiencing.That does not make them extremist. The unwillingness to listen to or be open to science or reason, to reject it, I think better characterizes an extremist view but even then, as I said, that's still fair enough.

 

As I see it , science does not have an entrenched view one way or another. In particular it does not care one way or another. To indulge in tautology, it is what it is.The trouble IMO is that science at this stage just can't tell us what we precisely perceive or do not perceive in the experience of complex music. It is therefore a subjective pursuit (which is perfectly fine). We can however get clues by looking at indirect markers such as objective analysis of the audio signal.

 

So it is that some may be convinced they can hear things and others equally convinced they (or anyone else) cannot - when maybe both are subject to the exact same expectation bias, both fooling themselves. "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself.The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool" ( Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character).

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 3/14/2020 at 1:00 AM, daverich4 said:

Chris wants people to be able to be able to discuss a topic without disagreement.

 

I disagree 🤔

 

maybe there is a time and place for *some* disagreements,  especially those old disagreements that derail most every thread.

 

IMO the subjective/objective "moat" is where a few that could not express disagreement without resorting to belittling, have sunk!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Summit said:

 

To call someone an extremist is a serious accusation IMO and should not be said without hard evidence.Please do tell who are those audiophiles here on AS which is not open to science or reason, and more important which science more precisely do they reject when share their listening impressions?

 

I have not called any*one* or some*one* anything. Please point out where i did this and with "hard evidence".Nor do i intend to comply with your misguided demand to do so.

 

Quote

IMO most audio forum objectivist and subjectivists are not really objective. The difference is one group pretend that they are while the other just tell it like they hear it, none is immune to expectation bias.

 

Exactly so IMO - Edit except - the use of the word "pretend" is pejorative and in most cases this is not called for, they are simply subscribing to their own belief systems, not pretending IMO

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Where does the 95% figure come from?

 

a cautious tendency to underestimate !😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 3/26/2020 at 9:03 AM, daverich4 said:

How about if we get this thread back on topic and move the nostalgic comments to their own thread? Thanks. 

For the most part IMO the "moat" has been more of a deterrent to bad behavior.

 

Objectivists and subjectivists tribes continue to mingle on both sides of "the moat". The only difference is that 'the drawbridge' can be raised by either side if they don't desire to mingle.Ironically the audio tribes have been showing less tribalism.

 

I would say it's working well.

 

YMMV

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

So, we can discuss, we can disagree. What we can presumably agree upon is that there is far more to unite music lovers than divide us.Well, except for Frank, but we embrace him too 😁