Chris's Objective/Subjective moat seems one-sided

[Summit]

13 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.

 

 

 

1+

 

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

 

In which way are they radical?

 

Does those that are using their ears as the most important determinant of SQ really reject science?

 

I believe the opposite, which is if someone doesn’t know that experiencing by nature is subjective, they have a lot to learn about sound quality and what quality is in general. 

[Summit]

19 hours ago, John Dyson said:

This is one reason why I immediately go quiet when a discussion goes oustide of my area of competency -- but then there is an obligation to be factual when someone really does have knowledge.   There is a very strong obligation to avoid acting as an expert, when one really isn't.

 

 

 

Which is your "area of competency"?

[Summit]

14 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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).

 

 

 

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?

 

The unwillingness to listen to or be open to science or reason, to reject it, could be said about some of the so called objectivists that doesn’t even have to listen to a dedicated audio server, audio grade digital cable or audio switch before declaring that they are no better “sounding” than a regular PC, cable and switch.

 

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.