Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[Summit]

14 hours ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...perhaps what to measure can be said to be subjective (and the decision to measure at all--but almost everyone dislikes that guy), the measurement objective, and the interpretation of the measurement subjective? 
 

It's a sticky wicket, IMO, but I truly respect the engineers and scientists that have "learned the rules" and later uncovered new "rules." I married one (she has strongly advised me to stay out of this discussion, BTW). 😉
 

Honestly, if we don't take some things as at least practically objective, we'll never get the plane off the ground.

IMO that's an important underlying aspect of @jabbr's post, though I would not propose to speak for him on this or any other topic. 

 

Yes all interpretations are subjective by nature and that's the problem with measurements. Data is only data until interpreted what they mean for SQ. 

 

Through many millions of people, over many many years of testing what sounds “right, we have built a body of knowledge for what is practically objective, when it comes to experienced SQ.

[March Audio]

On 3/11/2021 at 12:54 AM, jabbr said:

measurements do measure physical phenomena such as audio signals. 
music enjoyment is typically subjective and not typically measured with an instrument. 
 

it is critical to understand the difference between a measurement and a subjective experience. It’s also critical how to relate the two eg the epistemology of “sense data”

 

it is critical to understand the difference between music as an art, and audio electronics as a field of engineering. it’s critical to understand the difference between measuring things and listening to things. 
 

nelson pass has written about this.

It is very important to understand the difference between the areas you mention. 

 

It always fascinates me when some people rate a piece of equipment or system on their "emotional"  reaction to it.  Their emotional reaction is influenced by so many factors and is entirely their own.  It's not relevant to anyone else or the sound of the equipment.  I can get involved in the sound from a cheap small radio.

 

Subjective assessment is a perfectly valid "measurement", just see the work of Floyd Toole on speakers and the correlation of the subjective to the objective measurements. Objective and measurement data can be correlated to what we can hear.

 

The problem revolves around audiophiles that form opinions without controls. These opinions are difficult to trust because it is so easy to be mislead without controls.

 

This isn't an argument of subjective v measurement as some like to present it, it's just about simple scientific rigour.  Subjective assessment can absolutely be scientific and useful/meaningful. 

[March Audio]

On 3/14/2021 at 7:11 PM, Summit said:

 

Yes all interpretations are subjective by nature and that's the problem with measurements. Data is only data until interpreted what they mean for SQ. 

 

Through many millions of people, over many many years of testing what sounds “right, we have built a body of knowledge for what is practically objective, when it comes to experienced SQ.

I would equally say that subjective interpretation are subjective and that's the problem with them 😉.  They only go beyond personal opinion when you apply some scientific rigour. Note that's not an argument for measurements. Scientific does not equal measurement.

 

your right that millions of people over the years have offered opinions on what sounds right.  Body of knowledge?  Well just see how people disagree on any forum about sound or what's best and you will realise it's less knowledge and more opinion.

[AnotherSpin]

4 hours ago, March Audio said:

I would equally say that subjective interpretation are subjective and that's the problem with them 😉.  They only go beyond personal opinion when you apply some scientific rigour. Note that's not an argument for measurements. Scientific does not equal measurement.

 

your right that millions of people over the years have offered opinions on what sounds right.  Body of knowledge?  Well just see how people disagree on any forum about sound or what's best and you will realise it's less knowledge and more opinion.

 

Knowing can only relate to the subject knowing the object. Subject is knowing object. Another thing is that pure knowing is distorted by bodily sensations and the thinking of the mind, and by the habits (patterns) of perception formed as a result.

[March Audio]

8 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Knowing can only relate to the subject knowing the object. Subject is knowing object. Another thing is that pure knowing is distorted by bodily sensations and the thinking of the mind, and by the habits (patterns) of perception formed as a result.

Yes, that's why you have to put controls in to eliminate those biases.

[AnotherSpin]

Just now, March Audio said:

Yes, that's why you have to put controls in to eliminate those biases.

 

You know controls exactly the same way as you know biases, knowing is all-inclusive and makes no difference. What value can conditional immutability of measurements have if the interpretation of the mind is different each time and is influenced by a significant number of external factors each time?

[March Audio]

14 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

You know controls exactly the same way as you know biases, knowing is all-inclusive and makes no difference. What value can conditional immutability of measurements have if the interpretation of the mind is different each time and is influenced by a significant number of external factors each time?

Thats what the controls are for.  They take away the biases. That's also why you do multiple tests with multiple subjects.  You find that the "outlier" opinions become obvious and be discarded.

 

This video covers it.

 

 

 

 

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, March Audio said:

Thats what the controls are for.  They take away the biases. That's also why you do multiple tests with multiple subjects.  You find that the "outlier" opinions become obvious and be discarded.

[...]

Tests and various "scientific" methods do not seem to me to be certain enough or certain in a long perspective. If we look at the history, we can see how often scientific methods have led to false conclusions, and opinions based on them have been revised radically afterwards. 

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

Tests and various "scientific" methods do not seem to me to be certain enough or certain in a long perspective. If we look at the history, we can see how often scientific methods have led to false conclusions, and opinions based on them have been revised radically afterwards. 

 

Yes, but how many times have such methods lead to the right conclusions?

 

Also, these revisions that you mention are an integral part of the scientific method.

 

[AnotherSpin]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Yes, but how many times have such methods lead to the right conclusions?

 

Also, these revisions that you mention are an integral part of the scientific method.

 

 

Yes, these methods may or may not lead to the right conclusions. Which is also typical for biases. Therefore, there is no fundamental difference. 

[semente]

Yesterday my wife was telling me about how some patients who took medication for asthma* were reporting improvements to the neurological disorder they suffer from. And they weren't imagining it; research later proved that what they were experiencing was in fact real.

Just one simple case of observation informing science.

 

* - said patients suffered from asthma, they didn't just decide to self medicate

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

Tests and various "scientific" methods do not seem to me to be certain enough or certain in a long perspective. If we look at the history, we can see how often scientific methods have led to false conclusions, and opinions based on them have been revised radically afterwards. 

You are generalising.  With respect that's a very nebulous statement.

 

So what are you saying?  Is it because the conclusions from scientific methods get revised then its an ineffective / inaccurate methodology? Challenge and development are very much part of the scientific process.

 

Well let's put it this way, the technology/ electronics that is used in your hifi system was all developed using the scientific method.

 

The study of Psychoacoustics, how we interpret sound, is very much scientific.

 

Had your scientifically developed covid jab yet?

[March Audio]

6 hours ago, semente said:

Yesterday my wife was telling me about how some patients who took medication for asthma* were reporting improvements to the neurological disorder they suffer from. And they weren't imagining it; research later proved that what they were experiencing was in fact real.

Just one simple case of observation informing science.

 

* - said patients suffered from asthma, they didn't just decide to self medicate

Observation and revision are very much part of science and the scientific method.

[March Audio]

7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Yes, these methods may or may not lead to the right conclusions. Which is also typical for biases. Therefore, there is no fundamental difference. 

Again with respect, that's a major misunderstanding.

 

So if you have doubts about a scientific conclusion then you can challenge it and provide you own evidence to disprove the conclusion.

 

Is there anything specific regarding the science of audio you disbelieve, or is this a general distrust of science?

[March Audio]

Deleted

[March Audio]

Deleted

[fas42]

What the problem in science is - because scientists are human - is that highly regarded people in the field contemptuously dismiss speculation as to where things can go, and what is possible. And may severely hamper movement forward. Interestingly, I yesterday watched a video on the development of the atomic bomb, where the key researchers of the underlying physics declared, beforehand, that the thought of harnessing nuclear energy was "nonsense!".

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

What the problem in science is - because scientists are human - is that highly regarded people in the field contemptuously dismiss speculation as to where things can go, and what is possible. And may severely hamper movement forward. Interestingly, I yesterday watched a video on the development of the atomic bomb, where the key researchers of the underlying physics declared, beforehand, that the thought of harnessing nuclear energy was "nonsense!".

 

The reason unsubstantiated speculation is dismissed in science is not contempt, but the fact that it's unsubstantiated.

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

The reason unsubstantiated speculation is dismissed in science is not contempt, but the fact that it's unsubstantiated.

 

Ah, it's not what you do, but how you do it ... speculation leads to further movement, but if it is derided in a dismissive way, by a person who's got a big stake in the story - that's the problem. Trying to be terribly rational about human behaviour, in the scientific world - just because it's science - does not help matters ...

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, it's not what you do, but how you do it ... speculation leads to further movement, but if it is derided in a dismissive way, by a person who's got a big stake in the story - that's the problem. Trying to be terribly rational about human behaviour, in the scientific world - just because it's science - does not help matters ...

Thinking,  understanding, and experiments lead to further movement in science. Idle, unsupported speculation leads to writing fiction novels or sometimes to complaining that nobody ever listens to you.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 Idle, unsupported speculation leads to writing fiction novels or sometimes to complaining that nobody ever listens to you.

 

Ah, magic words - of course, all good scientists never, ever indulge in such ... why, it would be impossible to look up scientific literature, and ever be able to come across examples of this 'wrong' thinking, would it now? 🙂

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

The reason unsubstantiated speculation is dismissed in science is not contempt, but the fact that it's unsubstantiated.

Which leads to scientists being wrong on many things including audio. 

[March Audio]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

What the problem in science is - because scientists are human - is that highly regarded people in the field contemptuously dismiss speculation as to where things can go, and what is possible. And may severely hamper movement forward. Interestingly, I yesterday watched a video on the development of the atomic bomb, where the key researchers of the underlying physics declared, beforehand, that the thought of harnessing nuclear energy was "nonsense!".

That's simply not the case.

 

Anyone, including you, is capable of challenging scientific views.  However you need to substantiate your challenge with theory and evidence.

[March Audio]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

Which leads to scientists being wrong on many things including audio. 

Please pick a topic in audio you thin is wrong and present your case.

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, March Audio said:

[...]

 

Is there anything specific regarding the science of audio you disbelieve, or is this a general distrust of science?

 

I have nothing against science. I just don't think the scientific opinion is any different from or better than ordinary bias. Intellect is wonderful instrument to approach practical everyday tasks, but it is no use for the really important questions, such as what is love, or how to make an omelette.