Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › You will get sick of head-fi
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

You will get sick of head-fi - Page 5

post #61 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AiDee View Post

Good points. And yes it should show up on paper. But it gets on paper in the first place because there's a theory that tells us to take certain kinds of measurements (glossing over the chicken/egg aspect for the moment).
So, if differences are heard - even if only by some people and only under certain conditions - it may be they are deceived. Equally, it may be the theory is inadequate.
The scientific position is not to ignore data. It's to investigate this data, and build new theory if necessary. Then, we might get something new on paper.
Personally, it does seem to me our current account is inadequate. But this is just speculation. The science way is not to speculate or debate, except for the purpose of hypothesis formation and testing (i.e. experiment).

Nice summary!

 

In my conversations with those who refuse to accept that, for example, the speaker wire from Home Depot can only be the same as the Chord Signatures I had on my ProAcs because of "scientific laws" it's seems that objectivity is not really possible.  But that's not a problem if that is remembered and one doesn't become married to their theories.  Models and theories can help in communication and sharing of our perceptions but I don't think that it is an absolute exercise.  That's fine as that is what living is, dynamic and changing.  Those who solidify their ideas will go down kicking and screaming but they will go down.

Measurable objective sound differences may show up in certain test data but you can't be sure what those mean without listening and then comes the subjective models of what is "right".

 

I really liked that linked quote from Hirsch.

 

Nice canuck breakdown..  

post #62 of 215
Hmm. In answer to proton, I can't let this pass sorry! In physics (and I guess engineering? You can tell me I expect) 5-6 sigma is commonplace and necessary. However, it's an astonishing claim that this is an essential aspect of scientific proof. Models can be and are falsified with far less certainty.

Science isn't predicated on realism. It's predicated on the ability to apply scientific method, i.e. in the first instance that there is a 'something' able to be measured; and in the second instance models able to be developed that predict successfully, better yet are generative (in part, make unprecedented predictions other models did not) and - because of all this - are falsifiable.
Edited by AiDee - 10/24/12 at 8:17pm
post #63 of 215
The consistent issue I see with a lot of the "science" arguments are related to a quest for Truth, as opposed to understanding what science can and cannot actually do. In other words, a lot of the drum-beating "science will answer everything" arguments seem more interested in seeking Truth, not empiricism. It's alarming.


Unrelated - I wanted to say that I think it's awesome that we're 5 pages in, and nobody is trying to tear anyone apart! beerchug.gif
Edited by obobskivich - 10/25/12 at 12:40am
post #64 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post
Unrelated - I wanted to say that I think it's awesome that we're 5 pages in, and nobody is trying to tear anyone apart! beerchug.gif

 

I think that may be because, though we have different thoughts to offer, we're all pretty much in agreement that we don't much like what goes on in places like the science forum (in my case, by reputation since I haven't actually visited it).

 

I think at some point with science it comes down to what we use it for. If we're genuinely interested in the answers to things, then that's great. But if all we're concerned with is making other people think we're smart because we have all the answers, just to boost our egos, then that's not okay. Knowledge may certainly be power, but it isn't a tool for enforcing some sort of social or intellectual hierarchy.

 

Remember. People like Issac Newton have since been proved wrong in multiple instances, but they were probably still smarter than most of us alive today. Being "wrong" or uninformed of modern developments doesn't make Newton less intelligent than the average student today learning about, say, non-Newtonian fluids. Similarly, being "wrong" about something audio-related doesn't make somebody uninformed, ignorant, or unintelligent, nor does it make the person who is "correct" somehow better by comparison.


Edited by Argyris - 10/25/12 at 1:14am
post #65 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

The consistent issue I see with a lot of the "science" arguments are related to a quest for Truth, as opposed to understanding what science can and cannot actually do. In other words, a lot of the drum-beating "science will answer everything" arguments seem more interested in seeking Truth, not empiricism. It's alarming.
Unrelated - I wanted to say that I think it's awesome that we're 5 pages in, and nobody is trying to tear anyone apart! beerchug.gif

Now that makes sense to me. Science is great but it can never give truth.. and thats the pitfall I think a lot of budding scientists fall into. Maths is brilliant! But you have to have a solid belief in it to begin with. If I was to believe in it I wouldn't be mistaken to also think 1+1 = 3, but thats just my view. Space and time are one, not two separate things.. is another example and point of view. And there's not a single scientist out there that can persuade me to think otherwise! An inherent belief in dualism kind of clouds all fundamental basics. To actually believe in any kind of truth is nothing but clear arrogance. I'm not having a go at science or scientists. I'm constantly astounded by science and what it achieves.. but as Obob said, it's empiricism, nothing more.

post #66 of 215

Yes, Science too requires belief. However, it also presents and keeps a clear track of its own limitations. 

 

I guess its very human to not back down, its hard for us to accept that we simply don't know how some things work.

 

What I like is that Science is self correcting, in that it tries to fail itself first, and only upon failing to fail, is something accepted.

 

There's an interesting article on PopSci: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box


Edited by proton007 - 10/25/12 at 2:30am
post #67 of 215

More funny than interesting that article.

post #68 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

Sorry, I'll try to break it down Canuck style. 
"the limits of content presuppose an ideological frame onto the discussions on that particular sub-forum."

The rules of hockey create the expectations that players will behave in certain ways. 


Thanks, now I understand!
No irony intended, BTW!

The Sci Fi Fo often looses Me when it gets too psycho-acoustic.rolleyes.gif
post #69 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

I think that may be because, though we have different thoughts to offer, we're all pretty much in agreement that we don't much like what goes on in places like the science forum (in my case, by reputation since I haven't actually visited it).

I think at some point with science it comes down to what we use it for. If we're genuinely interested in the answers to things, then that's great. But if all we're concerned with is making other people think we're smart because we have all the answers, just to boost our egos, then that's not okay. Knowledge may certainly be power, but it isn't a tool for enforcing some sort of social or intellectual hierarchy.

Remember. People like Issac Newton have since been proved wrong in multiple instances, but they were probably still smarter than most of us alive today. Being "wrong" or uninformed of modern developments doesn't make Newton less intelligent than the average student today learning about, say, non-Newtonian fluids. Similarly, being "wrong" about something audio-related doesn't make somebody uninformed, ignorant, or unintelligent, nor does it make the person who is "correct" somehow better by comparison.

Yes, you've basically got the gist of the problems in the Sci Fi Forum!
There are far too many objectivists who seem to believe it is their job to "fix" the ignorant Subjectivists and everyone in the middle ground.
post #70 of 215

Wow. This thread got seriously derailed....

post #71 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by RingingEars View Post

Wow. This thread got seriously derailed....

 

Why do you say that?

A lot of folks are sick of the Science Forum!tongue.gif

post #72 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

 

Why do you say that?

A lot of folks are sick of the Science Forum!tongue.gif

Now that was irony! gs1000.gif

post #73 of 215
Quote:
There are far too many objectivists who seem to believe it is their job to "fix" the ignorant Subjectivists and everyone in the middle ground.

 

How are we to negotiate between two possibly fundamentally incompatible positions? How would you like people who hold opposite values to your own to behave, and would you hold this same expectation of yourself? 


Edited by JadeEast - 10/25/12 at 9:17am
post #74 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

How are we to negotiate between two possibly fundamentally incompatible positions? How would you like people who hold opposite values to your own to behave, and would you hold this same expectation of yourself? 

I expect them to behave with some civillity.
Yes, I do hold this same expectation of myself.
post #75 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

How are we to negotiate between two possibly fundamentally incompatible positions? How would you like people who hold opposite values to your own to behave, and would you hold this same expectation of yourself? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

I expect them to behave with some civillity.
Yes, I do hold this same expectation of myself.

This.

I don't really care what someone wants to believe or adore or worship, what their muse is, how they get off, whatever - because that's part of their personal experience and life. I'm not saying those things don't matter, they just have relatively little bearing on my life (or to quote Joshua Graham: "whether or not God exists, what you or I believe has little bearing"). Where I take issue is when someone wants to shove their religion down my throat sideways, or persecute non-believers. In other words, dislike muggles all you want, but when they stop being muggles and start being "mudbloods" and you start wanting to hunt and enslave, we're gonna have issues.

And I see a lot of the "objectivists" as taking that tack - their tactics and arguments are more akin and similar to what you'd find with evangelists (and of course they usually have snide derision for those people too, because obviously their beliefs are the only true beliefs), than science.

If you want to make an evidence-based argument, and have actual evidence and data, you should never need to resort to scare tactics or intimidation to get people to listen. If they choose to reject your evidence or disagree with you, that's their own choice. And I think the constant back-and-forth between the school of thought that says "no, we're acting in the best interests of the unwashed savages because we are more learned and advanced, and we're going to show them how backwards they are and make them like us!" and the school of thought that says "I'm okay with me, I like me, my wife likes me, and if you can't accept that, that's okay, but I'm not changing" is what makes a lot of the more in-depth discussions here kind of sickening. And this doesn't mean one side is entirely at fault - sure the guy (or gal) who jumps on the boards and wants to tell everyone what to believe and how to feel is committing a "wrong" in doing so, but the people who hop into the mud-pit with them to wrassle are just as "wrong" (two wrongs don't make a right and all that).

And none of this is even remotely related to science or how science works, science doesn't "tell its followers" (mostly because it isn't a religion and doesn't have followers, and scientism is an unrelated thing) to go out and persecute those who disagree (the real irony here is of course that scientism, in outright rejecting all organized religion, has essentially become a religion, and just like any other organized religion, its adherents completely go against the "tenets" of the belief system they're using to predicate their world-view). But don't tell those who feed on carnage that - they might just lose it. ph34r.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › You will get sick of head-fi