Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[March Audio]

33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Oh dear, you're taking me seriously - I threw that one up, as an example of research into a concept that is more and more being seen as a con, especially by members of this forum ... if people with an agenda other than advancing the art, have their 'work' treated as being meaningful by the establishment, heaven help research into genuine issues, 😉.

No Frank, quite the contrary.  I was quite confident that you had not read the paper, let alone had any valid criticism of it, its methods or conclusions.

 

So, its clear that you were just talking nonsense and have no actual examples audio research being "done badly" or conclusions being "stabs in the dark".

 

You are conflating the commercial activities of MQA with "scientific methods".  One is not the other.

 

The irony of your gambit is comedic. This demonstrates precisely the opposite of what you think it does.

 

 Its the act of scientific assessment of MQA that has ultimately exposed it as being no audible benefit (in fact a detriment) and nothing more than a cynical land grab to attempt to monetise the music distribution chain.  Its MQAs deliberate avoidance and hindrance in allowing it to be scientifically assessed that has allowed it not to be exposed right from the start.

[fas42]

Just now, March Audio said:

You are conflating the commercial activities of MQA with "scientific methods".  One is not the other.

 

The irony of your gambit is comedic.  Its the act of scientific assessment of MQA that has exposed it as being nothing more than a land grab to attempt to monetise the music distribution chain.  Its MQAs deliberate avoidance and hindrance in allowing it to be scientifically assessed that has allowed it not to be exposed right from the start.

 

Ah, so there is now research by AES available that demonstrates that it in fact is a "land grab" ... examples?

 

As an example of 'research' that is freely available, that has a very obvious agenda - https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20210523/20891.pdf. The author is driven to "knock down the subjectivists", rather than investigate in any useful way claims made.

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, so there is now research by AES available that demonstrates that it in fact is a "land grab" ... examples?

 

As an example of 'research' that is freely available, that has a very obvious agenda - https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20210523/20891.pdf. The author is driven to "knock down the subjectivists", rather than investigate in any useful way claims made.

No Frank, you have been caught out, Im not going to waste my time.

[March Audio]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, so there is now research by AES available that demonstrates that it in fact is a "land grab" ... examples?

 

As an example of 'research' that is freely available, that has a very obvious agenda - https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20210523/20891.pdf. The author is driven to "knock down the subjectivists", rather than investigate in any useful way claims made.

Again, please cite what your specific issues are with the paper, methods and conclusions (beyond you not liking the conclusion).  Please explain why you believe this to be an example of research being "done badly" or conclusions being "stabs in the dark".

[AnotherSpin]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Didn't know that science finally discovered Brahman! ;)

 

And why are we discussing science vs. religion and metaphysics on an audio forum? In an objective part of the forum no less? 

 

 

Did I mention religion? I don't care about religion, if it needs to be clarified. If you look back page or two before, a colleague made the point that science is accurate, bias is not. All I wrote back was that science is no more accurate than bias. That's all, I have nothing more to say here.

[AnotherSpin]

7 hours ago, March Audio said:

It was you that was implying that life was oh so wonderful before modern science.  I just pointed out the obvious benefits science has given us.

 

Had your covid jab yet?

 

no

[opus101]

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

 Its the act of scientific assessment of MQA that has ultimately exposed it as being no audible benefit (in fact a detriment) and nothing more than a cynical land grab to attempt to monetise the music distribution chain.  

 

I am also very keen to learn how science can be used to expose a 'land grap' and also cynicism. I've never seen scientific definitions for those terms so I'm waiting for your explanation with bated breath.

[March Audio]

22 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Did I mention religion? I don't care about religion, if it needs to be clarified. If you look back page or two before, a colleague made the point that science is accurate, bias is not. All I wrote back was that science is no more accurate than bias. That's all, I have nothing more to say here.

You mentioned Buddha and that you would rather be in the company of Buddha rather than that of any modern lover of science.

 

Buddhism is a faith/spiritual practice/religion.  With respect religion is not an appropriate or relevant thing to discuss in this objective thread.

 

No I did not say science was "accurate".  I countered your assertion that:

 

I just don't think the scientific opinion is any different from or better than ordinary bias.

 

Science is not an opinion, it is a method.  It is the very antithesis of bias, or for that matter, faith.

[March Audio]

10 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

no

So considering you think science is ineffective and therefore the scientific endeavour of developing a covid vaccine must also be ineffective, I take it that you wont be getting a covid jab?

[AnotherSpin]

6 minutes ago, March Audio said:

You mentioned Buddha.  Buddhism is a faith/spiritual practice/religion.  With respect religion is not an appropriate or relevant thing to discuss in this objective thread.

 

No I did not say science was "accurate".  I countered your assertion that:

 

I just don't think the scientific opinion is any different from or better than ordinary bias.

 

Science is not an opinion, it is a method.  It is the very antithesis of bias.

 

Buddha (or Jesus or Mohammed) did not invent religions. Other people did, and much later. Institutions were created for the purpose of generating income. It is quite similar with so-called science, in both scenarios the main purpose of its existence is to create and sell something to people who do not want or not able to think freely. 

 

More, the opposition of science vs. religion is a seeming one. Neither the former nor the latter has anything to do with actual reality. 

[March Audio]

23 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Buddha (or Jesus or Mohammed) did not invent religions. Other people did, and much later. Institutions were created for the purpose of generating income. It is quite similar with so-called science, in both scenarios the main purpose of its existence is to create and sell something to people who do not want or not able to think freely. 

 

More, the opposition of science vs. religion is a seeming one. Neither the former nor the latter has anything to do with actual reality. 

So you think the purpose of science is to "create and sell something to people who do not want or not able to think freely".

 

You also think that science has nothing "to do with actual reality."

 

I am truly at a loss of how to respond to such ludicrous statements.

 

Well I sincerely hope that as you wont be getting the covid vaccine, if you do end up sick in hospital that the scientifically developed medicines and technology that will keep you alive are very real..........but if you feel all that science is just selling something that you dont want or need............🤣

[semente]

23 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Science is not an opinion, it is a method.  It is the very antithesis of bias, or for that matter, faith.

science - open-mindedness = dogma

[March Audio]

12 minutes ago, semente said:

science - open-mindedness = dogma

I entirely agree.  Whats your point?  Especially considering a fundamental/defining part of science is questioning things.

[semente]

10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I entirely agree.  Whats your point?  Especially considering a fundamental part of science is questioning things.

 

To keep an open mind and question existing knowledge might be a good place to start.

Like you said, "Sicence" refers to a method not the plethora of knowledge we have currently gathered.

 

It's one of the things that drives me up the wall at ASR, people referring to Science when what they mean is current knowledge.

We humans are limited by the capabilities of our senses. So we design equipment to expand those capabilities. As technology evolves so does our ability to explore and examine the universe. New hypotheses come up, more knowledge is gathered.

[AnotherSpin]

33 minutes ago, March Audio said:

[...]

I am truly at a loss of how to respond to such ludicrous statements.

 

Well I sincerely hope that as you wont be getting the covid vaccine, if you do end up sick in hospital that the scientifically developed medicines and technology that will keep you alive are very real..........but if you feel all that science is just selling something that you dont want or need............🤣

 

I am not expecting you to reply. Especially if you don't have answers. 

 

Don't worry about my health. I am not ill, nor do I intend to be - I am used to thinking for myself and am not subject to the fears of the crowd. Vaccines or other dubious solutions are of no use to me at all.

 

And, yes -- I am real. And you are. The only difference I know it, and you do not know it yet, but it can be improved.

[March Audio]

18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

To keep an open mind and question existing knowledge might be a good place to start.

Like you said, "Sicence" refers to a method not the plethora of knowledge we have currently gathered.

 

It's one of the things that drives me up the wall at ASR, people referring to Science when what they mean is current knowledge.

We humans are limited by the capabilities of our senses. So we design equipment to expand those capabilities. As technology evolves so does our ability to explore and examine the universe. New hypotheses come up, more knowledge is gathered.

Absolutely.  The reasons I got booted from ASR was because I was questioning the methods/approach/conclusions of the proprietor.  The site has stopped being about a scientific approach.

 

What I would say is that whilst of course scientific knowledge will continue to expand and be refined, it doesnt follow that WRT to the things we discuss here about audio, that the current state of scientific knowledge is inadequate.

[March Audio]

18 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

I am not expecting you to reply. Especially if you don't have answers. 

 

Don't worry about my health. I am not ill, nor do I intend to be - I am used to thinking for myself and am not subject to the fears of the crowd. Vaccines or other dubious solutions are of no use to me at all.

 

And, yes -- I am real. And you are. The only difference I know it, and you do not know it yet, but it can be improved.

Answers to what questions?

 

You dont intend to be ill?  So you believe its under your control?  You think covid is mass hysteria and nothing to be feared?  You think vaccines dont work?

 

I am quite confident that I know I am very real.

 

Your comments are becoming increasingly bizarre.

[AnotherSpin]

53 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Answers to what questions?

 

You dont intend to be ill?  So you believe its under your control?  You think covid is mass hysteria and nothing to be feared?  You think vaccines dont work?

 

I am quite confident that I know I am very real.

 

Your comments are becoming increasingly bizarre.

 

Freedom can look bizarre from the outside. Even stranger from the inside. It requires certain courage, probably that might be the reason so few people want it. 

 

In terms of control - we don't control anything, and we don't choose anything. Yes, I actually think the source of disease is in the head. 

[March Audio]

45 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Yes, I actually think the source of disease is in the head. 

Ok, I think that statement is reason enough to put you on ignore.

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Did I mention religion? I don't care about religion, if it needs to be clarified. If you look back page or two before, a colleague made the point that science is accurate, bias is not. All I wrote back was that science is no more accurate than bias. That's all, I have nothing more to say here.

 

Religion, mysticism, faith, metaphysics, anti-science, yes, you mentioned most of these directly or indirectly. It's clear where you stand on science, but as March Audio said, science is not an opinion. It's a process, and a process designed explicitly to try to weed out opinions and beliefs that have nothing to do with reality. Perhaps that's why it's so hated by some and misinterpreted or misunderstood by others.

[Iving]

2c

Of course Science avoids idle "armchair philosophy". It rests on the empirical tradition (sense data, observation, replicability). Its findings are more weighty in debate than mere opinion ("I worked it out in me head, so it must be true") - and scientific findings can be invaluable/indispensable.

But Science as a pursuit is not so different from the spiritual life: in the end the protagonist finds what she or he is looking for. [You ask the questions you want answered. You turn over the "right" stones. You hang out with the "right" crowd because birds of a feather flock together. You persist. You read, digest and publish niche material. Sooner or later your ship comes in, and on that day you reap the great reward.]

If there is a difference worth mentioning, Science as a human endeavour is all but a competitive sport (grants, funding, careers, reputations, egos, publications, fame, institution demands, employer, commissioner and policy-maker pressure to name but not many). Just to the extent that professional Science is contaminated with political and ulterior and motives may we expect its outcomes to veer from "truth", and its reputation to be tarnished.

More crucially, Science goes wrong when it forgets itself. Every scientific assertion is falsifiable. There is no onus of proof on the agnostic in a matter - only on the antagonist. Only a foolish scientist (or one with an axe to grind) wastes breath contradicting the Subjective - there really isn't any need. Science isn't about the Subjective. Let's celebrate joyfully facts as we understand them now.

Our audio game is a tricky one. In so far as they may be considered reliable, facts are fittingly elevated in our thinking. They are ignored or discarded only by the senseless. But so many of our "disagreements" wallow in the *twilight zone* - the one where a given thing may be plausible or implausible depending on one's predisposition, but nothing has been proven for or against it. It is all very well for the tough-minded to call for proof, but really no obligation of any kind exists. Why roil the enjoyment of the deluded (should you consider them so - in your own opinion) in the name of "Science". Science is *not* out to get anyone. If it prides itself on anything, surely it is neutrality.

The problem with these "conversations" is that they always appear polarised. Superficially this is because participants want to corroborate their psychological comfort zone. It's a control problem that all humans suffer. We don't want to feel helpless. We want to feel sure about things. Underneath that, really it's a personality clash between hawks and doves.

(As I read him) AnotherSpin has a point you know. Control is delusion. The only "truth" (leaving aside Revelation) lies between your ears. And  it will die with you.

ymmv :-)

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, Iving said:

The only "truth" (leaving aside Revelation) lies between your ears. And  it will die with you.

 

And of course, we don't even know that, do we? After all, reincarnation is just as possible as anything else, and maybe death is just a transition from one state to another inside my mind. And do I really have ears, or is that just my mind making this up? What if I don't have ears, how am I listening to music and hearing differences between components? Oh, this is so confusing! 

 

"I think therefore I am" seems to be the only thing for certain. Everything else is not real and only exists in my imagination or between my two imaginary ears. Cool! Then I get to decide what science is, and I say it's a process for learning about natural world that works better than faith, belief, opinion, religion, or mysticism. Because it's all in my mind, this is how I want it to work, therefore that is how it works, so everyone can just stop arguing ;)

 

[Iving]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

science is not an opinion. It's a process, and a process designed explicitly to try to weed out opinions and beliefs that have nothing to do with reality

 

e.g. "I am a GALACTIC WANDERER"

:-)

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, Iving said:

e.g. "I am a GALACTIC WANDERER"

:-)

 

Having been involved in astronomy most of my life (from about age 11), that tag line seemed appropriate ;)

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

Only a foolish scientist (or one with an axe to grind) wastes breath contradicting the Subjective - there really isn't any need. Science isn't about the Subjective. Let's celebrate joyfully facts as we understand them now.

 

but the subjective can be analysed in a scientific way.