[FunkyBassMan]

Only if I choose to accept the generalization and/or see myself as a member of that group.

Right, which makes it a direct personal attack on people who've openly claimed membership in the group, which gregorio is certainly keenly aware of.

Those options don’t exist with direct personal attacks.

True.

I can always tell myself that the insult was directed at a shade of blue I don’t wear. It’s a fine line, but also an important distinction.

Hmm...that's an interesting subtlety. Will have to think on that.

 

[BS5711]

FunkyBassMan,

I have no interest in getting into this argument with you or anyone but as an outside opinion from someone who has seen your involvement in several of these type of discussions I think you are stretching the rationale of your argument a bit far.

You seek these discussions out to argue with the science guys, you don’t come thinking you might learn something. I think that is pretty self evident and to a point that is OK.

However, your attacks most certainly come across as being quite specifically directed at individuals despite that you apparently don’t mean them that way. You can’t be critical of someone right after their post and pretend the criticism was directed at a general group or a concept not a person only because you don’t name that person. “They” in your usage is either one person or a very small group of people the members of which are pretty self evident.

The difference with gregorio’s comments is he specifically states who he is criticising which is typically a large group with anonymous members so, as has been pointed out, no person is specifically targeted by the criticism. If he is targeting an individual he does so with rebuttal to a discussion point not a personal criticism, at least not that I have seen.

If I am being honest I think you fully intend to criticise individuals, you disagree with them so you are saying so. That is understandable in principle but I do think you take the comments of some a bit much to heart because the “facts” presented differ to your subjective experience. I think it is disingenuous to deflect that, owning it is more honourable.

Like I said I have no interest in discussing this, I just thought that a mostly outside opinion might shed light on how your conduct comes across and why you don’t see the difference between what you say and what others say and why it seems a comment from you was pulled down but theirs wasn’t.

Nothing personal, might just be something you perceive differently or have not considered because you are only coming from your perspective.

 

[bigshot]

People who believe in and do stupid things are stupid. So if someone believes and does that way, they are defining themselves.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

FunkyBassMan,

I have no interest in getting into this argument with you or anyone but as an outside opinion from someone who has seen your involvement in several of these type of discussions I think you are stretching the rationale of your argument a bit far.

I'm listening...

You seek these discussions out to argue with the science guys, you don’t come thinking you might learn something. I think that is pretty self evident and to a point that is OK.

I get that it may seem that way, but in fact, I have no interest in arguing with anyone. If I did, I would be here a LOT more. There is LOTS of material to question.

However, your attacks most certainly come across as being quite specifically directed at individuals despite that you apparently don’t mean them that way.

I can see that. This is, however, because there are a few who present everything they say as though it were established scientific fact with a total lack of humility.

This is why I only point out the most ridiculous, absurd contentions they make - things that are off-the-charts wrong.

This is not meant to be an attack on individuals, it's to illustrate that their "holier-than-everyone" attitude and lack of humility is uncalled for as they are as fallible as the rest of us.

You can’t be critical of someone right after their post and pretend the criticism was directed at a general group or a concept not a person only because you don’t name that person. “They” in your usage is either one person or a very small group of people the members of which are pretty self evident.

Fair enough.

The difference with gregorio’s comments is he specifically states who he is criticising which is typically a large group with anonymous members so, as has been pointed out, no person is specifically targeted by the criticism. If he is targeting an individual he does so with rebuttal to a discussion point not a personal criticism, at least not that I have seen.

Ok, then I will come up with some sort of "it's an entire group of which (wink, wink) you also are a member" nomenclature too if that will make you happier.

If I am being honest I think you fully intend to criticise individuals, you disagree with them so you are saying so.

You're free to think whatever you want to think, obviously. I have no interest in individuals; my interest is in demonstrating that the "holier than everyone" tone used is refuted by terrible errors these people sometimes make and thus would better be discarded and replaced by some humility.

That is understandable in principle but I do think you take the comments of some a bit much to heart because the “facts” presented differ to your subjective experience. I think it is disingenuous to deflect that, owning it is more honourable.

No, it's not taken to heart. And thank you for putting "facts" in quotes, because I think that's exactly right.

Like I said I have no interest in discussing this, I just thought that a mostly outside opinion might shed light on how your conduct comes across and why you don’t see the difference between what you say and what others say and why it seems a comment from you was pulled down but theirs wasn’t.

Gotcha - thanks for your thoughts.

Nothing personal, might just be something you perceive differently or have not considered because you are only coming from your perspective.

No worries.

I actually am fascinated by the psychology behind the situation where people who are clearly intelligent and informed can defend "facts" that are literally by definition unprovable, and do so without the slightest humility.

But that's neither here nor there. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

People who ... do stupid things are stupid.

This is useful: here's a perfect example of someone stating something totally ridiculous as though it were fact, with no evidence and no humility.

Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman and (take your pick) certainly did stupid things.

But will the poster at issue humbly recognize his mistake?

Therein lies the rub.

 

[bigshot]

When Einstein did stupid things, he was stupid. I’ve seen smart people be stupid, haven’t you?

 

[FunkyBassMan]

When Einstein did stupid things, he was stupid.

And here we have our answer to my question posed. Any humility shown?

No, as you can see, entirely the contrary.

Apparently we're to believe one of the greatest minds in human history was stupid.

In an earlier post, Castle referred to how unseriously the Sound Science forum is taken.

One can understand why.

 

[bigshot]

The trick is to not be repeatedly or continually stupid.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

The trick is to not be repeatedly or continually stupid.

Well on that we can certainly agree.

(a side note: Daniel Kahneman provides fascinating science behind this in his famous book and various articles and talks.)

 

[BS5711]

I'm listening...


But that's neither here nor there. Thanks for your thoughts.

And thank you for your courtesy.

 

[bigshot]

The sound science forum isn’t taken seriously by people who don’t take sound science seriously. I honestly don’t know why people come in here to argue against ABX. If they don’t want to accept a tool as fundamental to the topic of the forum as that, they’re in the wrong forum. If they make a big deal of it, they should be shown to the door.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

And thank you for your courtesy.

My pleasure - thank you for yours and the interesting engagement.

 

[XTF1]

For example, the discussion of science is banned on Head-Fi except in this one subforum.

Is that (literally) right?

Is it banned because it always end up with the recent kind of discussions we’ve seen so far in this thread—mostly not soundstage-related?

 

[FunkyBassMan]

The sound science forum isn’t taken seriously by people who don’t take sound science seriously.

I can see that.

I honestly don’t know why people come in here to argue against ABX.

Who's argued against ABX?

If they don’t want to accept a tool as fundamental to the topic of the forum as that, they’re in the wrong forum. If they make a big deal of it, they should be shown to the door.

The important system 1/2 issue, who's making an issue of ABX?

(as an aside to ignore if you like: you may be interested to know that I've offered to bet a very large amount of money (a bet which still stands) that I could tell the difference between my DAC and a $20 Amazon dongle on my headphones with a p<0.05 (meaning less than a 5% possiblity of a correct ID being chance). I have said the controls can be completely handled and overseen by anyone the contrary party chose. We would do it live and put the results online. I happened to know there was someone among those on the other side of the bet who has immense amounts of money and so the bet would be trivial to him. So I thought sure it would happen. We were well on the way until the other side caved; despite their convictions, they were too scared to actually bet on them. Anyway, I'm not afraid of ABX.)

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Is that (literally) right?

Is it banned because it always end up with the recent kind of discussions we’ve seen so far in this thread—mostly not soundstage-related?

No, that's completely wrong. Nothing so ridiculous is in the rules.

Look around and you'll see science is regularly discussed all over the place.