I'm am more "subjectivist" than "objectivist" but allow me to make an observation from a middle perspective.
Each group has an area of knowledge they regard as "more knowable" and one they regard as "less knowable."
The objectivists regard the physical world as knowable and understandable through the methods of science. People are understandable as objects---that is, as black boxes which we put through listening tests.
To avoid getting into the cable controversy, let's refer to a generally controversial device X which many subjectivists believe sounds different than other varieties of X, and objectivists say measures essentially the same in all instances.
The objectivists say "All X's sound the same." The subjectivists would say, "But we've had clear experiences of them sounding different." They say, "Where did these experiences come from?" The objectivists say, "It doesn't matter where you got the notion that device X is 'musical and fast'; it could literally have come from anywhere."
So to objectivists, the world of music as experienced-in-the-first-person is not one that needs to be explained. Anything could happen, anything could be true about it.
The subjectivists, on the other hand, see the subjective world as amenable to systematic exploration and gathering of knowledge. A liftetime of experiences, many of which are surprising and contrary to what the person expected, goes into forming opinions about sound. For them, it's the objective world which carries some mystery. "We know science isn't perfect," they would say. "You have your measurements and models, but they don't tell the whole story." The objectivists might ask, "What, then, is the story? What are we overlooking? Ball's in your court. Give us something specific or you are just hand-waving." The subjectivists, would say, "Literally anything could be true. That's what the unknown means."
Each group has an area of knowledge they regard as "more knowable" and one they regard as "less knowable."
The objectivists regard the physical world as knowable and understandable through the methods of science. People are understandable as objects---that is, as black boxes which we put through listening tests.
To avoid getting into the cable controversy, let's refer to a generally controversial device X which many subjectivists believe sounds different than other varieties of X, and objectivists say measures essentially the same in all instances.
The objectivists say "All X's sound the same." The subjectivists would say, "But we've had clear experiences of them sounding different." They say, "Where did these experiences come from?" The objectivists say, "It doesn't matter where you got the notion that device X is 'musical and fast'; it could literally have come from anywhere."
So to objectivists, the world of music as experienced-in-the-first-person is not one that needs to be explained. Anything could happen, anything could be true about it.
The subjectivists, on the other hand, see the subjective world as amenable to systematic exploration and gathering of knowledge. A liftetime of experiences, many of which are surprising and contrary to what the person expected, goes into forming opinions about sound. For them, it's the objective world which carries some mystery. "We know science isn't perfect," they would say. "You have your measurements and models, but they don't tell the whole story." The objectivists might ask, "What, then, is the story? What are we overlooking? Ball's in your court. Give us something specific or you are just hand-waving." The subjectivists, would say, "Literally anything could be true. That's what the unknown means."
