jaddie
Account deactivated by request.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Posts
- 1,253
- Likes
- 91
I'm soooo disillusioned. I thought it was "Eggs, Rugs and Rock and Roll". Now I have to throw out my entire collection of eggs. And rugs.
why is that? Have you tried to burn cds both ways?
why is that? Have you tried to burn cds both ways?
didn't think so
I still think burning cds on a laptop on battery power sounds better than doing the same thing on mains power. Am I foolish on this?
I understand what you are saying, we just should be clear about the difference between experiencing a difference (subjective), and their actually being one (objective). If there is no objective data to support an audible difference, and a mountain of evidence suggesting that, in fact, there shouldn't be one - then one's experience not withstanding, we shouldn't be making recommendations based solely on that experience. Especially given the very good evidence we have regarding how the brain processes data, and what factors can bias it (often tremendously).
That is to say, personal experiences, while valuable, do not trump objective evidence - especially overwhelming evidence. They may, however, inform the search for actual evidence that later might. In the meantime, it is what it is, one person's subjective opinion, and nothing more. An experienced placebo does not mean it is anything more than placebo - and it's predictive/modeling value for others is virtually nil (e.g. since we don't know the specific biasing factors, and there is no objective data to suggest a difference - there is no reason to think any two people would experience that placebo the same way, unless they are influenced by review/expectation/marketing similarly - quite murky waters).
IMo the ability of science to account for the experience of life is very limited, I don't mean that it is useless or incorrect, but just limited in what it can predict. For me my direct experience comes first and foremost above a priorised mentally constructed determination of what my experience will be. Science enters to help make sense of what I directly perceive.
This statement misrepresents, or fundamentally misunderstands the hypothetico-deductive method. Additionally, it is generalized to the point of absurdity. Whether you choose to utilize the scientific method in your audio-related decision making or not, you cannot simply disregard the scientific method when it is incongruent with whatever point you are making. Scientific inquiry is the basis of all (learned) knowledge (imprinted and instinctual knowledge excluded), and the scientific process, in and of itself should be beyond reproach.
I think you touched upon my point, scientific method is fine for scientific research, But it does not override what I directly observe, except in extreme cases.
The problem is that what you directly observe can be unreliable and biased, unless the right measures (double-blind testing, etc.) are taken to eliminate all sources of bias. This is something that has been known to science and proven for a long time, but is apparently very hard for audiophiles to accept (even banned here at the other sub-forums).
Quote:This statement misrepresents, or fundamentally misunderstands the hypothetico-deductive method. Additionally, it is generalized to the point of absurdity. Whether you choose to utilize the scientific method in your audio-related decision making or not, you cannot simply disregard the scientific method when it is incongruent with whatever point you are making. Scientific inquiry is the basis of all (learned) knowledge (imprinted and instinctual knowledge excluded), and the scientific process, in and of itself should be beyond reproach.
I think you touched upon my point, scientific method is fine for scientific research, But it does not override what I directly observe, except in extreme cases. Fact is though that the science being brought to bear against "audiophile claims" is generally piecemeal and of limited scope and sample size. The vast majority would not pass for academic research. I do not consider it comprehensive.
You are right, anti-audiophile nonsense is frequently undersampled, while audiophile nonsense has little basis in reality and is unsampled. That is neither here nor there, because I frankly don't care. Admittedly, contrary examples likely exist for both.
I am responding exclusively to your absolute disregard for the scientific method. The scientific method is contingent upon repeatable observation. To assert that your observation of the world supersedes well established and rigorously tested theory is ridiculous. Science is based on repeated and repeatable observation. I think you should review the hypothetico-deductive method, then reconsider your statements. You have not presently passed judgement on the application of the underreplicated pseudo-science of these boards, but rather, you have cast aspersion on science as a practice, the scientific method, and the philosophy of science.
In short, just because it looks like the sun revolves around the earth doesn't make it so.
For your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This is true, but unfortunately double blind testing and objective measurements are not practical for the vast majority of the decisions we make. If you can organise such testing for specific decisions this is great, and certainly generous in terms of providing a more reliable data point for other people.