Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint - Page 4

post #46 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


Because when you go on an audio forum and bring up a totally unrelated topic as the basis for an analogy, it is the responsibility of everyone else to spend ten years studying said totally unrelated topic, otherwise you win the argument by default?

rolleyes.gif

 

Haha, he's the one that brought up the technical aspects of it, not me.  I only used it as an analogy, that's why I specifically said I wasn't going to go into details about it, and that's why even myself referred to it an arbitrary to the main point, which both you and the other dude seem to ignore, which is that science is ever changing. 

 

I guess I could have just said "science once said the earth was flat, now it's round", but that's a lot more general, overused, and fairly cliche.  Sorry for trying to be original. 

 

I shouldn't have even posted in here.  Just ignore my posts and continue your regularly scheduled programming.


Edited by Meremoth - 6/30/13 at 5:37am
post #47 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

 

Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong.  Because the time variance and frame variance is the same between Crossfire and a single GPU?  Wrong.  You need to do some more research in frame rating and crossfire and SLI technology, then do a history backlog of all the back and forth, and you'll see how it could be very comparative to the arguments displayed here.

 

I put scientific in quotes when referring to "scientific people".  Didn't think I had to do that for each time I said it, but for you, obviously I had to.

 

The main point I was trying to make was that science is ever changing, and the results of science today might be changed, altered, and sometimes downright disproved by the science of tomorrow.  Capiche?  Instead of focusing on that, you decide to whine about arbitrary points that are already implied.  Of course subjective tests are an important part of science, did you not even read what I wrote?  

 

"Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!  "

 

After all, subjective experiences is what leads to scientific tests.  Talk about talking out of your behind...

 

The entire point of my post, which went right over your head, was that subjectivity, that couldn't at the time be backed up by science, was eventually proven correct BY SCIENCE!

 

Where's the mute button?

 

Funny how said gut feelings completely disappear whenever subjective impressions are solicited in a scientific manner (i.e. using blind tests) rolleyes.gif

If gut feelings were always right, the earth should still be flat (as per your cliche 2nd analogy).

post #48 of 820

BTW, flat earth hypothesis is more like the first "gut feeling" null hypothesis against which early science was pitted.  I'm not aware of many early scientific studies that concluded that the earth was flat...

post #49 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

Funny how said gut feelings completely disappear whenever subjective impressions are solicited in a scientific manner (i.e. using blind tests) rolleyes.gif

If gut feelings were always right, the earth should still be flat (as per your cliche 2nd analogy).

 

You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  What's your point?

 

When did I ever say gut feelings were always right?  

 

I have a feeling you could argue with a brick wall, and if that's the case, I suggest you go talk to one.

post #50 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

 

You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  What's your point?

 

When did I ever say gut feelings were always right?  

 

I have a feeling you could argue with a brick wall, and if that's the case, I suggest you go talk to one.

 

And if your intent is to have the last word in this thread, I doubt that would be possible in THIS thread... unless you get it locked somehow.

post #51 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

 

You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  What's your point?

 

When did I ever say gut feelings were always right? 

 

If gut feelings are not always right, why should we arbitrarily hold on judgement on various audiophile myths indefinitely just because audiophiles have this gut feeling that they are correct--despite them having been proved wrong over and over again as thoroughly as is epistemiologically possible?

post #52 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

If gut feelings are not always right, why should we arbitrarily hold on judgement on various audiophile myths indefinitely just because audiophiles have this gut feeling that they are correct--despite them having been proved wrong over and over again as thoroughly as is epistemiologically possible?

 

Again, what and who are you talking to and about?  I never said anything like that.  

 

I'm starting to think you have some sort of psychosis, or just very lonely or bored.

post #53 of 820

You said...

"Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!"

 

Who should arbitrarily decide when science can be trusted and when I have to trust my gut instead?

 

If you are disavowing yourself of this earlier statement that's fine.

post #54 of 820

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong.  Because the time variance and frame variance is the same between Crossfire and a single GPU?  Wrong.  You need to do some more research in frame rating and crossfire and SLI technology, then do a history backlog of all the back and forth, and you'll see how it could be very comparative to the arguments displayed here.

They are valid if you understand what the numbers actually mean and use them as such, but I do not see how this has any relevance to what is being discussed here.

 

 

Quote:

I put scientific in quotes when referring to "scientific people".  Didn't think I had to do that for each time I said it, but for you, obviously I had to.

 

The main point I was trying to make was that science is ever changing, and the results of science today might be changed, altered, and sometimes downright disproved by the science of tomorrow.  Capiche?  Instead of focusing on that, you decide to whine about arbitrary points that are already implied.  Of course subjective tests are an important part of science, did you not even read what I wrote? 

Sure, science is not static, but that doesn't suddenly make people hear differences they couldn't hear before.

As for "arbitrary" points, I was just commenting on you whining about "scientific curmudgeons" and that you "can't only rely on what graphs show you" and that sort of fallacies.

 

 

Quote:
"Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!  "

 

After all, subjective experiences is what leads to scientific tests.  Talk about talking out of your behind...

 

The entire point of my post, which went right over your head, was that subjectivity, that couldn't at the time be backed up by science, was eventually proven correct BY SCIENCE!

 

Where's the mute button?

Gut feeling, sure, science might just prove your gut wrong and I'd argue most of the time does. That's why we have science in the first place.

 

I agree with experiences leading to tests. No need to get derogatory.

 

Maybe you should make the actual point you're trying to make instead of raising "arbitrary" points and using analogies. Would lead to less misunderstandings, which I apologize for if it helps.


Edited by xnor - 6/30/13 at 6:11am
post #55 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

If gut feelings are not always right, why should we arbitrarily hold on judgement on various audiophile myths indefinitely just because audiophiles have this gut feeling that they are correct--despite them having been proved wrong over and over again as thoroughly as is epistemiologically possible?

To justify the empty wallet!

post #56 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

You said...

"Nothing wrong with science, I'm all for science and graphs, but sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, and in the end, science just might prove your gut right!"

 

Who should arbitrarily decide when science can be trusted and when I have to trust my gut instead?

 

If you are disavowing yourself of this earlier statement that's fine.

 

You are over-analyzing this way beyond death.


Only you can decide when, what, and who to trust.  

 

I'm not on either side of the audio debates, I'm brand spanking new to the audiophile world.  Only reason I said I rooted for the "subjective" (for lack of a better word) guys was because they are the underdog, obviously, with all the facts, spreadsheets, and data in their face and to the contrary of what they believe.  It's fun to root for the underdogs and hope they might, someday, turn out to be proven correct.  I only wanted to point out it has happened before in other electronic communities.

 

Yet you seem intent on trying to grammatically nitpick attack my posts.  Maybe I did something to offend you?  If so, sorry, but not really.

 

You have Skype?  I think we should finish this convo face-to-face, so I'm not misinterpreting any of your intentions in this discussion.  If you behave I might even slip you a lil' nip, we'll see...


Edited by Meremoth - 6/30/13 at 6:43am
post #57 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

 

You are over-analyzing this way beyond death.


Only you can decide when, what, and who to trust.  

 

I'm not on either side of the audio debates, I'm brand spanking new to the audiophile world.  Only reason I said I rooted for the "subjective" guys was because they are the underdog, obviously, with all the facts, spreadsheets, and data in their face and to the contrary of what they believe.  It's fun to root for the underdogs and hope they might, someday, turn out to be proven correct.  I only wanted to point out it has happened before in other electronic communities.

 

Yet you seem intent on trying to grammatically nitpick attack my posts.  Maybe I did something to offend you?  If so, sorry.

 

You have Skype?  I think we should finish this convo face-to-face, so I'm not misinterpreting any of your intentions of this discussion.  If you behave I might even slip you a lil' nip, we'll see...

 

There is objective information within the science itself to show how solid and beyond doubt (or not) the state of each branch of science is at.

 

Funny, I'm not aware of a definition of "underdog" that involves them dominating every subforum of the premier forum of headphones on the WWW, save for one pitiful little thread in one pitiful little subforum reserved for the "overdogs".  In the cable subforum, even mention of double blind testing is explicitly banned.  Not a month goes by without another member of the shrinking clan of objective "overdogs" being banned from the forum altogether.  xnor here for example was banned just two days ago and I feared the worst and thought him gone forever.  This very thread was locked afterwards and the running joke was what we should call this place next time if "Saloon" gets locked.  Cafe? Halfway house?  I vote for "refugee camp" frown.gif

 

You didn't do much to offend me other than barge in pretty much the sole refugee camp for the objective "overdogs" rooting for the "underdogs"...

 

In other words, if you intend to root for the "underdogs", you're barking up the wrong tree, indeed...

 

If you think people going (only?) by their gut are the underdogs in the audiophile world, you are indeed too much of a newbie around these parts... ph34r.gif


Edited by Joe Bloggs - 6/30/13 at 6:50am
post #58 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

There is objective information within the science itself to show how solid and beyond doubt (or not) the state of each branch of science is at.

 

Funny, I'm not aware of a definition of "underdog" that involves them dominating every subforum of the premier forum of headphones on the WWW, save for one pitiful little thread in one pitiful little subforum reserved for the "overdogs".  In the cable subforum, even mention of double blind testing is explicitly banned.  Not a month goes by without another member of the shrinking clan of objective "overdogs" being banned from the forum altogether.  xnor here for example was banned just two days ago and I feared the worst and thought him gone forever.  This very thread was locked afterwards and the running joke was what we should call this place next time if "Saloon" gets locked.  Cafe? Halfway house?  I vote for "refugee camp" frown.gif

 

You didn't do much to offend me other than barge in pretty much the sole refugee camp for the objective "overdogs" rooting for the "underdogs"...

 

In other words, if you intend to root for the "underdogs", you're barking up the wrong tree, indeed...

 

Hmph, could have sworn you "overdogs" were the majority.  Maybe I haven't branched out enough into the other forums, but the only thing I have seen so far is the "overdogs" attacking/ganging up on the "underdogs" unprovoked, and a lot of times their attacks spill over onto the innocent who are here just trying to learn.

 

Funny how our biases can change our perspective of reality, huh?  


The fact you thinking I'm barking up any tree shows how overly-defensive and paranoid you are.  Suppose I was playing devil's advocate, but didn't actually expect to get Satan himself.  Sorry you're that sketched out to be here, but no need attacking random people because of unrelated negative experiences you've had.

 

How 'bout we split a Xanax?  You ready to hop on Skype?  PM your information.  The tone I'm getting from your text is pretty foul.  Perhaps body language can help clear some of that up, unless you have BO, get it?  Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck...


Edited by Meremoth - 6/30/13 at 7:06am
post #59 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

 

Hmph, could have sworn you "overdogs" were the majority.  Maybe I haven't branched out enough into the other forums, but the only thing I have seen so far is the "overdogs" attacking/ganging up on the "underdogs" unprovoked, and a lot of times their attacks spill over onto the innocent who are here just trying to learn.

 

Funny how our biases can change our perspective of reality, huh?  


The fact you thinking I'm barking up any tree shows how overly-defensive and paranoid you are.  Suppose I was playing devil's advocate, but didn't actually expect to get Satan himself.  Sorry you're that sketched out to be here, but no need attacking random people because of unrelated negative experiences you've had.

 

How 'bout we split a Xanax?  You ready to hop on Skype?  PM your information.  The tone I'm getting from your text is pretty foul.  Perhaps body language can help clear some of that up.


Lol, what metaphor do you suggest I use instead then?  pm sent. smily_headphones1.gif

post #60 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

That's a whole lot of processing going on, and it's actually not all that easy to fool. 

Doesn't seem to apply for audiophiles. biggrin.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint