Publius
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2003
- Posts
- 723
- Likes
- 21
Quote:
Yes, "trusting your own senses" is a sort of paradigm, in this context. Again, "ideology" doesn't quite express what I mean: more of like a worldview, with differences not only in theories of how things operate but also in what building blocks you use to describe things, epistemological differences (whether something really exists), etc. Everybody has a worldview about audio, even those who don't have a theory about how it all works. If you hear something and you therefore assert it to exist, you are making assertions about existence and about fallibility that people operating from other worldviews may not do - perhaps assert different things, or use different ways to express the same thing.
Going back to my original reply, my point is that while it is fair to criticize somebody as dogmatic if they do not even allow the possibility of the existence of an effect, it is unfair to criticize them simply because of theory or ideology. There's an important distinction between ideology and dogmatism.
Quote:
On the contrary, there are many examples - from the history of mainstream science, no less - where (in at least the modern view) expectation bias and placebo effects led to repeated measurements, large research developments, and eventually entire scientific theories, which turned out to be solely in the eye of the beholder. I touched on this in an earlier post. I'll quote myself just once here
Quote:
Quote:
Agreed; I suspect I'll need to pick up some Zus or Nitrogens or something at some point and see where that winds up going. So far my only dabbling has been with the Quails, and while I do get warm fuzzies about them, I'm not really prepared to listen to them critically.
Originally Posted by JaZZ I neither have a plausible theory nor do I believe. Unless trusting your own senses is a belief in your view. I hear the differences without a clue what causes them, and I just let it happen. |
Yes, "trusting your own senses" is a sort of paradigm, in this context. Again, "ideology" doesn't quite express what I mean: more of like a worldview, with differences not only in theories of how things operate but also in what building blocks you use to describe things, epistemological differences (whether something really exists), etc. Everybody has a worldview about audio, even those who don't have a theory about how it all works. If you hear something and you therefore assert it to exist, you are making assertions about existence and about fallibility that people operating from other worldviews may not do - perhaps assert different things, or use different ways to express the same thing.
Going back to my original reply, my point is that while it is fair to criticize somebody as dogmatic if they do not even allow the possibility of the existence of an effect, it is unfair to criticize them simply because of theory or ideology. There's an important distinction between ideology and dogmatism.
Quote:
Yes, you're really an objectivist!
|
On the contrary, there are many examples - from the history of mainstream science, no less - where (in at least the modern view) expectation bias and placebo effects led to repeated measurements, large research developments, and eventually entire scientific theories, which turned out to be solely in the eye of the beholder. I touched on this in an earlier post. I'll quote myself just once here
Quote:
You can make subjective observations, and believe you are very accurate in them, and see obvious and repeatable results, even get published in papers, and still be dead wrong. |
Quote:
Great! I think you're not the typical objectivist I would call biased by ideology. I was a cable skeptic myself, and even now I see no reason why cables should cause sonic differences. If I hadn't heard them myself I wouldn't believe it too. I had no such expectations when I first tried some new cables in my setup. But the difference was glaring. And I didn't like it at all. I went back to my cheap cables I had then, and the world was alright again. So my first encounter with cables was a negative one, but actually positive if you will. I think any measurable differences with cables would be of a similar shape as those among solid-state amps, although of reduced intensity. Well, there are skeptics and skeptics. |
Agreed; I suspect I'll need to pick up some Zus or Nitrogens or something at some point and see where that winds up going. So far my only dabbling has been with the Quails, and while I do get warm fuzzies about them, I'm not really prepared to listen to them critically.