Is it worth it?

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

Sorry to have such a kind of almost suicidal title here, but…

 

from my recent experiences on this forum, being objective gets you nowhere. I’ve tried explaining pretty basic stuff until I’m blue in the face, but because someone “believes” something, that is more important. If I try and point out that maybe, just maybe someone who has worked on stuff has a better idea than someone who read about in on Wikipedia, I get shouted down until the thread is closed. 
 

I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky - I believed so hard a bit of poo came out, but I was still somehow still on the ground?

 

Are we wasting our time here? Does it matter?

 

*edit* this might actually be a subjective piece ;)

 

*edit of the edit* - I’m here as I don’t like stupid mad things posted as “fact” in a subject I’m interested in - there is genuine innovation going on by various players with graphs and everything, and I don’t like it being confused with swapping out one kind of voodoo for another

 

your friendly ( as always ) neighbourhood idiot 

My view (yes, subjective) is that there’s little value to have objective discussions here. And I’ve tried. Instead of having an actual discussion you get shouted down, usually by the same small group of individuals who want to ensure that nobody challenges their world view, but who obviously have no interest in understanding the objective approach.
 

If you’re looking to get into a fight, then by all means. If you want to have a meaningful discussion with folks who can truly challenge you and help you grow and understand technology and science behind it — look elsewhere.
 

IMHO and YMMV.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you want an objective discussion, then work toward that goal and surprisingly you’ll get there. 

 

If one has to work this hard to get an objective discussion going, then this is just not the place for it. And again, I've tried, probably harder than most, and still failed. Hence my answer to @idiot_savant: it's not worth it. IMHO, IME, and YMMV.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’ve tried one approach, and that’s to work harder, not smarter. You can be the mod of any of your threads and one-click remove off topic posts. Pretty simple and works very well. 

 

Tried that as well. But if I need to be constantly moderating, hiding and editing posts by others, then, again, this is not the place to have a productive discussion.

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Chris,

 

OK, to move on from this because it's not going to progress things in a positive way, can I take it that you are happy for thread creators to take control and moderate their own threads to stop this sort of thing?

 

Can you explain how this is done?

 

Here's how it's done:

 

[pkane2001]

Just now, jabbr said:

Paul, it *is* worth it but the discussion has to be two ways. Create the tools, and make the suggestions, and give people ways to discover the answers for themselves. This is a hobby. If people like twisted blue wires or silver wires its ok.

Hi Jon,

 

Why is it worth it, in your opinion? I'm finding it harder to find the motivation to engage here, simply because I’m not getting much value from the constant bickering and arguing.

 

Create tools and let others discover answers for themselves? I may have tried some of that ;)

 

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

I am also naturally skeptical in regard to many audiophilia claims and I agree with your point that observation should be performed in an unbiased manner using adequate methodology and proper training.

But if scientists were not curious there would be no research, nor the advances in diagnostic and testing equipment which have allowed them to know more about the natural world. We would still using leeches as cure and mercury as medicine, and performing lobotomy.

Science is not dogma, it's not a Toole book.

That’s all true, but the main difference between science and voodoo  is not curiosity but objectivity.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

The typical response though is a simplistic let's ABX or it didn't happen followed by an equilly simplistic my test equipment doesn't budge so it's not possible. In a way, it's what Harman did, tick a few boxes, cut a few corners and puff we've proven our point.

 

That's the problem. You're expressing an opinion here, while Toole and others have done and published objective research, with enough information for others to evaluate it and to falsify it. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant in science -- that part doesn't matter since it's just a (subjective) opinion. What matters is if you have objective evidence to show that the research was right or wrong. And if you're really curious, then you'll look for such evidence. If not, you're not doing science, no matter how curious you claim to be 😎

 

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, semente said:

Which opinion am I expressing exactly?

 

Quote

 

In a way, it's what Harman did, tick a few boxes, cut a few corners and puff we've proven our point.