Originally Posted by PhilS
Ok. It's not a reasonable or fair characterization to say that someone who believes that they have heard a change in the sound of a cable is acting on "faith," just because they can't prove scientifically the cause of what they hear (or think they hear), or cannot provide a scientific explanation.
When one holds the objective
belief that cables do in fact "burn in" and in such a way as to produce an actual audible difference without there being any objective
evidence to support such a belief, then indeed, that belief is based on faith, no differently than religion is based on faith.
|It is a complete non sequitur to say that the inability to provide a scientific explanation for what one has observed renders an opinion based on that observation as one that is "faith based." And in asserting that, you are, IMO, disparaging the opinions of certain folks who don't agree with you, and doing so deliberately.
The non sequitur is asserting one's subjective experience as an unerring reflection of objective reality, i.e. "I heard (in the purely subjective sense) a difference after the cable was burned in, therefore burn in is real."
And again, what I call "faith based" is holding the objective belief that burn in is real without there being any objective evidence to support it.
|Second, I don't agree with your characterization of subjectivists as "pseudo objectivists," or with your comments about what they really believe and why.
Then don't agree.
And my statement wasn't a blanket characterization of all subjectivists. I said that most of those who call themselves subjectivists aren't truly subjectivists as they routinely assert their subjective experiences as objective reality. You simply can't be a subjectivist and do that. So I coined the term "pseudo objectivists" to describe these people. Because while they often make objective claims, they never substantiate them with objective evidence.
And I base this on my observations of the audio community over the past 30 years or so.
|On the other hand, perhaps you're just engaging in semantic games. (Doesn't anybody who comments on a personal experience to some extent pass off their experience as "an objective reality"?)
No. You have to go out of your way to do that.
If one simply says they burned in a cable and it sounded better to them, there's nothing inherently objective in such a statement. And if they don't go beyond that, then they are not asserting their subjective experience a reflection of any objective reality.
|In any event, it seems to me that your intent is the same as with the "faith based" statement, i.e., to cast a group of people who don't agree with you in a somewhat negative light.
Not at all.
If someone holds the objective belief that cables burn in and in such a way as to produce an actual audible difference without there being any objective evidence to support it, then how on earth is such a belief not
If that's not a faith based belief, then neither is the belief that there is a God. And if believing there is a God is not faith based, then what the hell is
a faith based belief?