 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
77.236.25.82
In Reply to: RE: As opposed to those who never validate anything... posted by Steve Eddy on December 15, 2010 at 12:11:03
...does it make it impossible for it to ever be objective?
I don't know, these arguments tend to go in circles and ignore the fact that subjectivity is held within a framework of objective as well as not-so-objective understanding of facts. I believe that a person IS capable of making a subjective assertion that near enough equates to objectivity because of all other things he knows. To say "well, that's just your point of view," is never a good enough argument for me and one I would never use myself...cos I might just miss an opportunity to learn something. It's when someone starts actively deceiving others, knowingly 'bearing false witness', that it starts to get complicated. As bad as that is, it doesn't help when people start accusing each other of such with no actual grounds to do so, which is what all this has been about.
Follow Ups:
A theory needs to be verifiable/falsifiable. "Fuses are directional" isn't any sort of theory to speak of. Now, "Because of x, fuses are directional" would be a better start. At least x can be verified or falsified.
But before going down that road, you first need to establish that your subjective perceptions are based on something other than pure psychology.
So first you establish that the direction of a fuse produces an actual audible difference. Once you've done that you can start to hypothesize as to what may be the cause. Then you can start putting the hypotheses to the test.
I don't know, these arguments tend to go in circles and ignore the fact that subjectivity is held within a framework of objective as well as not-so-objective understanding of facts.
What facts?
The typical reason these arguments end up going in circles is because the pseudo-subjectivists are usually in denial of the weaknesses of human subjective perception. They assume that just because they've subjectively perceived something that it MUST be due to some actual audible difference.
And to that end, they never get around to establishing actual audible differences. It's all taken on blind faith.
That doesn't get you anywhere.
I believe that a person IS capable of making a subjective assertion that near enough equates to objectivity because of all other things he knows.
What other things?
The one thing we DO know in all of this, without any doubt, is that human subjective perception is NOT the unerring reflection of objective reality that some seem to believe it is.
Yet that is often the one thing that's utterly dismissed by certain others in these discussions.
To say "well, that's just your point of view," is never a good enough argument for me and one I would never use myself...cos I might just miss an opportunity to learn something.
Well, all I can say is that if you truly want to learn something, then your first task should be setting about establishing actual audibility. And that can't be done by subjective perception alone.
se
a
nt
a
The moderators feel that allowing this thread to continue, even though it may hold useful information, will wind up creating more trouble than it solves, and thereby detract from the purpose of this forum.This is not the appropriate venue for discussion of this matter, and we ask that those with an interest in the subject, take it elsewhere (e.g. private e-mail).
No further follow-ups will be considered.
Thank you for your support of the Asylum.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
