Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Couldn't Objectivists Possibly Be Wrong?

Posted by thetubeguy1954 (A) on May 26, 2006 at 09:05:54

I've asked these questions of Real JJ, Pat D and essentially all objectivists here at A.A. via posts I've made here in the past.

Isn't it even possible that Objectivists are wrong? Isn't it even possible the scientific data DBT's correlate is wrong? Isn't it even possible DBT's aren't testing all that should be tested? Isn't it even possible that MAYBE Subjectivists hear what they claim, without it being their imagination? Isn't even possible that both Objectivists & Subjectivists haven't fiqured out how to prove this yet? Isn't it even possible Objectivists are wrong?

Objectivists seldom address difficult questions directly. Typically in true Objectivist fashion they'll look for and comment about mistakes in grammer, or incorrect dates used etc. If they cannot do that if it's possible they'll tears the results apart, because it didn't meet A, B, or C of their criteria. Lastly if all else fails and they don't like the a Subjectivits results or comments, they attack is via claims of Strawman, ad hominem arguments, etc. They do ANYTHING but address the points raised.
====================================================================
As a diehard Subjectivist I've tried to find middle ground, but Objectivists won't allow middle ground. They've yet to admit it's possible their beliefs are incorrect. Speaking as a Subjectivist but only for myself, I'll readily and publicaly admit IT'S POSSIBLE MY BELIEFS ARE WRONG, IT'S JUST NOT PROBABLE. Why don't I believe it's probable? Consider this...

First and foremost I have no problem with one of the claims by Objectivists, (this is a paraphrase) When anyone listenes to music the ear/brain combo will automatically "fill in" any missing data as needed. However the more I thought about that statement the more I came to believe that it supports Subjectivists beliefs.

For Example: We take four individuals. Each of these four individuals will have their own unique set of preferences, expectations and biases.

Now lets expose these four individuals to an audio test. The test is simple: What does interconnect X sound like? Remember regardless of whether the test is sighted or not, regardless of sound levels used etc. These are still four unique individuals. These four unique individuals have four unique sets of preferences, expectations and biases. These four unique sets of preferences, expectations and biases effect the process of how and what their own unique ear/brain combo fills in as missing data, and it does so uniquely!

Now because their four unique sets of preferences, expectations and biases have effected the process of filling in the missing data uniquely, it's both logical and mathematically probable, their individual ear/brain combo would choose unique or different data to fill in, out of all the missing data. Thus we'd expect one might hear better bass, another might hear a deeper wider soundstage and yet another might hear the whole sound became more transparent or whatever their four unique sets of preferences, expectations and biases chose. In any event the results should be unique.

That would be the logical result of four unique individual's ear/brain combo filling in missing data uniquely, "IF" they were imagining or fooling themselves, that is! Now "IF" that's what happened in a typical subjectivist listening session to determine, What does interconnect X sound like? I'd probably take the Objectivist statement, Subjectivists are either imagining or fooling themselves a lot more seriously!

Unfortunately, that isn't what happens in a typical Subjectivist listening session. Most of the time we are in agreement as to what interconnect X (or any other component) sounds like. I won't lie and pretend we are in 100% agreement, but we are in agreement a lot more times than one would expect four individuals, each with their own unique set of preferences, expectations and biases, in all probability should be. That would seem to indicate we were not imagining or fooling ourselves about what we heard.

So after reading this post if it's still easier for you to believe that four individuals with their different preferences, expectations and biases are all imagining or fooling themselves, they heard the same change occur, than so be it. You are a diehard Objectivist whose so committed to your belief system, you deny the mathematical improbability of the occurence of such events happening.

I personally find it almost impossible to believe that four individuals with their different preferences, expectations and biases all had their individual ear/brain combo's "fill in" the missing data, out of all the data that is missing, so they'd imagine they heard the same thing.

Lastly, if you're the type of person who likes hard scientific data. Thus DBT's, ABX's and "measured performance" seems more in line with how you think, remember until fairly recently scientists said, dinosaurs were big, lumbering, brutes, yet now scientists say dinosaurs were large, swift, intelligent hunters! If scientists were wrong about this, something scientists have been studying a lot longer than they've been studying whether or not individuals actually hear the audio differences they claim they hear, isn't it even possible that Objectivists are wrong?

Thetubeguy1954

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---