[bigshot]

Quote:

I'm not quite sure what you mean... but, the Internet is an open space. you could start your own forum, make your own rules, then gather the rest of the disciples here and talk about anything you want. why don't you do that?

We do have our own forum... Sound Science.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

And why is that?

 
Because true subjectivists do not try and pass off their subjective experiences as anything more than that. Those who do are not truly subjectivists nor should they be referred to as such.
 
se

 

[xnor]

Quote:

 
I am usually curious as to the reasoning process that led to the position. Disagreement leads to discovery, after all.

Actually, I am curious too.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
Apparently now there's a forum rule against calling them by their name!

 
Huh?
 
se

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

 
Because true subjectivists do not try and pass off their subjective experiences as anything more than that. Those who do are not truly subjectivists nor should they be referred to as such.
 
se

Point taken.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Because true subjectivists do not try and pass off their subjective experiences as anything more than that. Those who do are not truly subjectivists nor should they be referred to as such.

A lot of people in groups labeled X do not exactly fit the description of X. I also have trouble with "as anything more than that". Someone making a review of a headphone usually doesn't say "the following is not what I heard but fact".
 
While I like jcx's explanation the label isn't exactly "neutral". Delusional subjectivists is even worse.

 

[bigshot]

I think the new forum rule is that we have to refer to them as "people who might very well know better than scientists do".

 

[Lenni]

Quote:

We do have our own forum... Sound Science.

 
this forum is anything but science. the topics in this forum are all about framing audiophiles and hi-end audio in general in a negative way. that all you do here. this is not a science forum, and I bet real scientists would feel ashamed to post here.

 

[gikigill]

No, real scientists would step in and provide empirical evidence, they don't let ttheir personal feelings interfere in the process.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
the topics in this forum are all about framing audiophiles and hi-end audio in general in a negative way.

 
It's the high-end audio industry that does that. Primarily all that's done here is to simply hold up a mirror to it.
 
se

 

[gikigill]

BTW if hi end didn't have so many scams running, they wouldn't have anything to fear about. This has been proven on a pretty regular basis.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

 
this forum is anything but science. the topics in this forum are all about framing audiophiles and hi-end audio in general in a negative way. that all you do here. this is not a science forum, and I bet real scientists would feel ashamed to post here.

1) Before saying that you should understand science.
2) Well, how can you talk about delusions and the like in a positive way?
3) I bet you don't know who of the people posting here are scientists or engineers, so a moot point as well. Have you, by any chance, every posted at hydrogenaudio? There are a "couple" of scientists there and the forum rules are a lot stricter. Just read the TOS over there if you have a minute.

 

[yblad]

Quote:

 
this forum is anything but science. the topics in this forum are all about framing audiophiles and hi-end audio in general in a negative way. that all you do here. this is not a science forum, and I bet real scientists would feel ashamed to post here.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. There is a decent amount of bad science in here but there is also some very good solid stuff. You just have to be very careful to go away and really think about things. In any public science forum there's going to be bad science. This one is no worse than many others I've visited. Atleast in here I haven't yet seen the always passionate and terribly informed "is there a centifugal force" discussion yet

 
I actually find the discussions here to atleast try and be as informed as possible. Well, excluding the usual undesirables who know nothing about science but still try and pretend they do. But as I said, impossible to have a public forum without that.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

I think the new forum rule is that we have to refer to them as "people who might very well know better than scientists do".

 
Ah.
 
One thing I find curious though is that for some utterly bizarre reason, "placebo" is considered a derogatory term as per the rule that Currawong quoted before closing the other thread. It's lumped in with terms like "weasel," "shill," "fanboy," "koolaid," and "audiophool."
 
Again, utterly bizarre.
 
se

 

[yblad]

Quote:

 
Ah.
 
One thing I find curious though is that for some utterly bizarre reason, "placebo" is considered a derogatory term as per the rule that Currawong quoted before closing the other thread. It's lumped in with terms like "weasel," "shill," "fanboy," "koolaid," and "audiophool."
 
Again, utterly bizarre.
 
se

Very true. People consider it offensive, as if you're insulting their personal ability as a human being. Rather than the scientific phenomena which effects everyone that it is. Even stubborn and cynical gits like me can and do fall pray. Personally I am more than happy to admit that my ears may well lie to me at any given moment in time for any reason.