Zanth
SHAman who knew of Head-Fi ten years prior to its existence
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2001
- Posts
- 9,570
- Likes
- 44
Quote:
This is important. And well said.
Popper is a grand man to bring up and one of my fav's. He was a proponent of explanatory science not instrumentalism or *shudder* positivism. Given this, I'm a big proponent of examining all facets of reality as much as possible and inventing new methods of testing when one discovers additional information once thought to be absent from the equation. DBT (as currently conducted) might be fine for some, but isn't for others.
Anyone seriously considering evaluating the science behind hearing needs to read: Your Brain On Music
It really opens up many new areas of research including biochemistry and biology. The "other" thread had quite a few zealots trolling and flaming, name calling etc. This brings nothing to the table and essentially insinuates that anyone who feels they are hearing something that isn't being tested and recorded is hearing things. No doubt they might be! There is quite a bit of research on this already. However, new research is coming out that is indicative of folks who were in the past deemed insane or fools, may have actually been hearing differences. So...provided people remain civil (as they ought to behave in any forum or subforum at this site) then DBT or rather scientifically based discussions ought to flourish. This is a hobby right? Hobbiest generally are obsessed with the intricacies of every facet of that which they obsess over. The science behind hearing, the science behind music and music reproduction and the science behind the gear should be quite interesting.
Originally Posted by saint.panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think most people would agree with the scientific approach (although I prefer Popper's term "scientific methodology"). It's just that the "test with experiment" and "draw conclusion" parts are a bit tricky, e.g. whether DBT is a meaningful test. At the same time, the scientific approach propagated by certain members simply sounds snobbish and dogmatic, which is what most people dislike so much. Most of all, a hobby like audio should be something fun and relaxing, so there needs to be some balance between scientific vigour and blissful ignorance. So I think it's good that it be kept out of the normal cable forum. If it doesn't become a bashing forum of the ignorance of other members or a place trenched in scientific dogma like Hydrogenaudio, this could be an interesting sub-forum. |
This is important. And well said.
Popper is a grand man to bring up and one of my fav's. He was a proponent of explanatory science not instrumentalism or *shudder* positivism. Given this, I'm a big proponent of examining all facets of reality as much as possible and inventing new methods of testing when one discovers additional information once thought to be absent from the equation. DBT (as currently conducted) might be fine for some, but isn't for others.
Anyone seriously considering evaluating the science behind hearing needs to read: Your Brain On Music
It really opens up many new areas of research including biochemistry and biology. The "other" thread had quite a few zealots trolling and flaming, name calling etc. This brings nothing to the table and essentially insinuates that anyone who feels they are hearing something that isn't being tested and recorded is hearing things. No doubt they might be! There is quite a bit of research on this already. However, new research is coming out that is indicative of folks who were in the past deemed insane or fools, may have actually been hearing differences. So...provided people remain civil (as they ought to behave in any forum or subforum at this site) then DBT or rather scientifically based discussions ought to flourish. This is a hobby right? Hobbiest generally are obsessed with the intricacies of every facet of that which they obsess over. The science behind hearing, the science behind music and music reproduction and the science behind the gear should be quite interesting.