pdupiano
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Posts
- 1,480
- Likes
- 22
Quote:
The psuedo-scientific method used to demonstrate the existence of a perception is an exercise to demonstrate that I detect some sonic differences among the 6 cables. As I mentioned, science cannot prove that my experience exists, it is beyond the scope of science. My experience can be left as an experience and I can be called a crockpot or an idiot so long as I hold on to it -that is the reason why I perform those psuedo-scientific demonstrations. It is not to prove that the experience exists, but rather to get the community to understand that I in fact do experience something that allows me to differentiate between the 6 cables.
I am dealing with perceptions and I can't fathom how you could misconstrue anything I've written as dealing with theories of the mind. I do not retreat any of points brought up into problems or difficulties with theories of the mind, you're doing that for me. Your issue seems to be how I can state that science cannot disprove my experience. Science is limited to explaining and describing observed phenomena, it cannot prove or disprove what we experience. 99.999999999% of what we experience can be explained using science but do not mistake that as a proof for the existence of that experience. My perception of light and color can be described and explained by science, but science cannot prove that I can see light and color. Furthermore, I cannot prove that my experience exists as well (at least in the same sense that I can prove a particular theory or mathematical equation). I can merely state and demonstrate that I can see in color. Should I have the ability to demonstrate it, then science kicks in. The use of scientific based tests do not utilize science to prove that my experience exists -it simply demonstrates to a community that I can experience something that perhaps others do not, and now I look towards science to determine what it is.
Additionally, this isn't the tread to end all cable wars. Read the first couple of sentences in the first post. This is a working progress.
And if you're asking for what is important in all this its quite simple.
1. Science cannot prove/disprove my experience, it can only be used to demonstrate to a community that I am experiencing something through only changing cables in a system (do you really want to get into causality arguments here -because I am painstakingly taking the time to demonstrate that my other senses are numbed with the exception of my hearing and the only changes made are cables which result in some experience).
2. If 1 is true, then the current arguments against cables (eg dbt with cables, science says cables don't make a difference etc...) are meaningless
3. The non-cable party then has two choices
A. Admit that their arguments lack scientific basis
B. Admit that their scientific methodology are flawed (See previous posts)
If B, then their conclusions regarding dbt with cables provide us with nothing.
If A, then the pro-cable and the non-cable stand on equal footing, but more importantly it leads to the conclusion that non-cabler's need a new argument other than the previously used "science tells you that you can't hear this."
=====================
Ugly Joe, you're missing the point. the if then portion of all this leads to the conclusion that science cannot prove/disprove an experience. And if science cannot prove/disprove an experience then the current arguments stating that "science tells you that you cannot hear this" are nullified and the non-cablers must come up with new arguments against the pro-cabler.
Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. When you make an argument that something exists, on the basis of observational evidence, this is an empirical exercise. The relevance of science here is no less than that it disciplines the exercise in such a way as to generate proof of theses. By stating that you do not conform your proof methodology to scientific standards, you are simply informing the reader that what follows is not proof at all and cannot be taken seriously as a 'demonstration' of the existence of a particular phenomenon, as characterised by yourself. Yes, I understand that you are then trying to retreat to a characterisation of the phenomenon as something like the bare qualia associable with your experience. However, if you think that such an alternative characterisation is at all relevant, let alone dispositive of the issue at hand in a thread titled "the argument to end all cable wars", your conclusion defeats your own premise. 2. There is no trap to fall into. As noted above, yes, I get the distinction. My point is simply that such a distinction avails you of no protection against substantive criticisms of your proof methodology. In your dualist conception of subjective phenomenology, yes, I suppose science cannot in some limited sense conclusively "disprove" that you have the bare phenomenology that you have come to associate with cables. However, it can, as conclusively as really any other sort of empirical task, disprove your ascriptions of causality. Attempting to retreat to an argument over the bare existence of the attendant qualia, while perhaps rhetorically effective on the matter of whether science may conclusively 'disprove' all phenomenological elements you associate with the use of cables, is nonetheless completely and utterly self-effacing in a thread titled "the argument to end all cable wars." In other words, to say that the proper characterisation of the argument is that scientific arguments in cable arguments are no use, because the bare subjective phenomenology is not conclusively disproveable, is to do nothing more than tell the reader that you do not offer, and do not intend to offer, any particularly good reason to believe that cables themselves have a causal relationship with your experience. 3. This is just a rehash of the prior point. Yes, I get the distinction but as I noted the ultimate inferences are lethal to your overall project. 4. The test methodology you loosely described is designed to evaluate the causal relationship between the experience you claim to have and its purported cause. It is, in essence, an effort to isolate variables as to conclusively establish whether the cause is the cables themselves, but creating an experimental environment in which alternative theses fail to conform to the evidence. It is not is a test of whether you are lying or mistaken about your subjectivity. That is completely irrelevant to anyone who is concerned about whether cables have any impact on sound. The only thing that is relevant is whether there is a causal relationship, because the absence of proof of a causal relationship means that one may not reasonably expect cables to make any difference to the sound they experience. This is ultimately why insisting to me that this discussion is over the existence of 'the phenomenon', characterised as the bare qualia you have come to associate with cables, resolutely defeats your overall project. If this is all you wished to tell us about, then you've really not told us much of anything at all. It is simply uninteresting and irrelevant, to someone concerned about whether cables are causally inert vis-a-vis audible output, that you have some experience for which you cannot and will not conform your proof methodology to means adequate to prove causation. |
The psuedo-scientific method used to demonstrate the existence of a perception is an exercise to demonstrate that I detect some sonic differences among the 6 cables. As I mentioned, science cannot prove that my experience exists, it is beyond the scope of science. My experience can be left as an experience and I can be called a crockpot or an idiot so long as I hold on to it -that is the reason why I perform those psuedo-scientific demonstrations. It is not to prove that the experience exists, but rather to get the community to understand that I in fact do experience something that allows me to differentiate between the 6 cables.
I am dealing with perceptions and I can't fathom how you could misconstrue anything I've written as dealing with theories of the mind. I do not retreat any of points brought up into problems or difficulties with theories of the mind, you're doing that for me. Your issue seems to be how I can state that science cannot disprove my experience. Science is limited to explaining and describing observed phenomena, it cannot prove or disprove what we experience. 99.999999999% of what we experience can be explained using science but do not mistake that as a proof for the existence of that experience. My perception of light and color can be described and explained by science, but science cannot prove that I can see light and color. Furthermore, I cannot prove that my experience exists as well (at least in the same sense that I can prove a particular theory or mathematical equation). I can merely state and demonstrate that I can see in color. Should I have the ability to demonstrate it, then science kicks in. The use of scientific based tests do not utilize science to prove that my experience exists -it simply demonstrates to a community that I can experience something that perhaps others do not, and now I look towards science to determine what it is.
Additionally, this isn't the tread to end all cable wars. Read the first couple of sentences in the first post. This is a working progress.
And if you're asking for what is important in all this its quite simple.
1. Science cannot prove/disprove my experience, it can only be used to demonstrate to a community that I am experiencing something through only changing cables in a system (do you really want to get into causality arguments here -because I am painstakingly taking the time to demonstrate that my other senses are numbed with the exception of my hearing and the only changes made are cables which result in some experience).
2. If 1 is true, then the current arguments against cables (eg dbt with cables, science says cables don't make a difference etc...) are meaningless
3. The non-cable party then has two choices
A. Admit that their arguments lack scientific basis
B. Admit that their scientific methodology are flawed (See previous posts)
If B, then their conclusions regarding dbt with cables provide us with nothing.
If A, then the pro-cable and the non-cable stand on equal footing, but more importantly it leads to the conclusion that non-cabler's need a new argument other than the previously used "science tells you that you can't hear this."
=====================
Ugly Joe, you're missing the point. the if then portion of all this leads to the conclusion that science cannot prove/disprove an experience. And if science cannot prove/disprove an experience then the current arguments stating that "science tells you that you cannot hear this" are nullified and the non-cablers must come up with new arguments against the pro-cabler.