[Bytor123]

Thank you. Do you think that there's anything left to post in 'sound science' that is not axiomatic?

 

[bigshot]

To me, the most important aspect of sound science is discussing how science can be used to improve the fidelity of one's home audio system... basically, the application of science for a purpose. Pure science is better dealt with in labs and peer reviewed journals than in internet chat forums. We should be helping each other by offering tips regarding how to most effectively and efficiently achieve optimal sound fidelity in our living rooms. That's the spirit that makes our discussions actually useful to people, and raises them above just contentious debates and irrelevant trivia.

 

[Dogmatrix]

Yes, it’s just guidance, it’s not a definitive, comprehensive list of what is acceptable to science and/or this subforum. Such a list would at least be impractical, if not impossible, and:

IMHO, some clarification, even just some rather vague or somewhat ambiguous clarification, is better than no clarification whatsoever. And, the fallacy section is important because the use of fallacies is common in usual speech, and rife in the audiophile world. The guidance introduces the concept of logically valid/invalid reasoning, which may help somewhat in many cases because discussions/arguments often degenerate into total anarchy due to the impasse that is reached when we try to reason logically with someone being illogical/irrational. EG. It’s all very well pointing out that an argument is irrational/illogical but what difference does that make unless both sides know that irrational/illogical is invalid?

No, it does not say “call for evidence at every conceivable point”. It specifically says that evidence can be requested in the case of a claim or assertion which contradicts established science. You might say, “What difference will that make? Trolls will just say at every conceivable point in the debate that our assertions contradict established science and demand reliable evidence.” - To which I would say: Yep, that’s very likely, the guidance is not magically going to stop trolls from trolling. However, it might deter some trolls and even when it doesn’t, the argument is now framed as “What is the established science and what is the reliable evidence?”, which is pretty much the ideal framing of an argument/discussion IMHO, given the name of this subforum. Sure, it’s not always going to work but hopefully it will help, at least occasionally.

G

I was looking from a troll perspective, which was uncomfortably comfortable

As an accidental troll the condensed message goes something like

Who dares enter here
Prostrate yourself before us
Lest you be judged unworthy

Over dramatic but it paints a picture mostly of deterrent. My opinion is that the accidental trolls are amongst those who should be most encouraged

For the malicious troll it is a feast

Due to the lack of a formal entry portal into the sub forum and although I have no data, I believe such charters are largely ignored it seems an exercise in futility at best and detrimental at worst

 

[Dogmatrix]

Thank you. Do you think that there's anything left to post in 'sound science' that is not axiomatic?

A question of knowing, I don't think there is a single head which carries the sound science axiom

 

[gregorio]

Thank you. Do you think that there's anything left to post in 'sound science' that is not axiomatic?

Pretty much all the science in consumer audio reproduction was axiomatic at least 30 years ago and some of it well over a century ago. So you could argue there was almost nothing left to post before this subforum even started! Fortunately, this is a discussion forum, so we can discuss axioms with newcomers and between ourselves, even if we’ve already discussed them previously.

Who dares enter here
Prostrate yourself before us
Lest you be judged unworthy

Sure, trolls and others can and probably will interpret the guidelines in all sorts of ways, including in ways not intended. Not sure how it’s possible to entirely avoid that. The alternative is what we have now, which is no guidelines, so everyone can make up their own rules or lack of them and then be shocked or insulted when we challenge false claims, ask for reliable evidence and spend 5 pages arguing why even their wife could hear it is not suitable evidence.

Again, the guidelines are not designed or intended as a “cure all”, or to deter potential posters, just as an aid to help avoid the worst unpleasantness and save a bit of effort repeating ourselves.

G

 

[bigshot]

There isn’t a lot of point arguing about things that are already proven. I think doing that is what got us into this hole. Instead we should get past self evident stuff and be sharing ways to improve fidelity, showing people how to get the most out of their gear, and how to debug problems. If pointing to a document can replace all those arguments about stuff that is established to be true already, that is good. We can start doing useful things instead.

Head-Fi is about home audio, so “science” is defining a specific kind of sound, “sound” isn’t defining a specific kind of science. We get into the weeds when we argue over contextless scientific principles. We need to keep focused on why people are on Head-Fi in the first place… namely home audio.

 

[gregorio]

We get into the weeds when we argue over contextless scientific principles.

Do you have any examples? IME, we usually get into the weeds not because “we argue over contextless scientific principles” but because we argue against nonsense claims/beliefs which contradict the actual facts (that are typically reliant on scientific principles).

G

 

[bigshot]

Naming them would be invoking the demons!

 

[Dogmatrix]

Pretty much all the science in consumer audio reproduction was axiomatic at least 30 years ago and some of it well over a century ago. So you could argue there was almost nothing left to post before this subforum even started! Fortunately, this is a discussion forum, so we can discuss axioms with newcomers and between ourselves, even if we’ve already discussed them previously.

Sure, trolls and others can and probably will interpret the guidelines in all sorts of ways, including in ways not intended. Not sure how it’s possible to entirely avoid that. The alternative is what we have now, which is no guidelines, so everyone can make up their own rules or lack of them and then be shocked or insulted when we challenge false claims, ask for reliable evidence and spend 5 pages arguing why even their wife could hear it is not suitable evidence.

Again, the guidelines are not designed or intended as a “cure all”, or to deter potential posters, just as an aid to help avoid the worst unpleasantness and save a bit of effort repeating ourselves.

G

I get it, perhaps my head is just in a bad place, but I am increasingly seeing a sum negative

I don't see the current situation as that bad, in the recent case the mechanisms in place worked eventually

I think the personal application of disengagement is the least worst option, continuing debate with someone who shows no sign of comprehension is futile

Guidelines are an expedience, to function they must be seen to apply universally

 

[castleofargh]

You'd think it would be easier to make rules for an objectivist section. Something like "if you listen to music, don't post in this section".

 

[Steve999]

I get it, perhaps my head is just in a bad place, but I am increasingly seeing a sum negative

I don't see the current situation as that bad, in the recent case the mechanisms in place worked eventually

I think the personal application of disengagement is the least worst option, continuing debate with someone who shows no sign of comprehension is futile

Guidelines are an expedience, to function they must be seen to apply universally

Post in thread 'Sound Science thread for songs you can't get out of your head'
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sou...ant-get-out-of-your-head.966129/post-17318581