Are you a Verificationist about audio?

let me try to escape from the paradox, byron, which you stated in a syloogism.

i make the assumption that only that which is either true or false is subject to proof.

statements of an analytic-apriori nature fall within the set of that which can be proven.

for example, in euclidian geometry, one can prove base angles of an isoceles triangle are equal. the proof does not involve the senses.

when you perceive, the result has some probability of being true and a probability of being false. thus perceptions cannot be proven true or false.

in the empirical world (experience) absolute proof is not possible.

in the world of the abstract, it is possible.

there are many other examples in trigonometry, boolean algebra, calculus, num,ber theory, which are subject to proof.

the problem with preception is that one can never say the perception is true, with certainty.

one may have confidence in one's perceptions and act on them, but one can never be sure that one's perceptions are true.

confirmation by others, if the sample is large, can lead to confidence, but not truth.

This will sound clumsy so bear with me as I have to come down a rung or two on the ladder of abstraction in order to relate.

So the Popperian perspective as it pertains to corroboration is simply to understand that corroboration is generally all that is needed to determine a consensus necessary to arrive at an agreeable, though not necessarily definitive conclusion?

A conclusion adequate enough to allow further investigation and development knowing that what has preceded isn't necessarily definitive but convincing enough to rely on until disproven, dispelled, or modified at a later date?

A most progressive (dare I say, liberal) way of thinking that allows for variance and an amount of randomness since nothing is absolute.

Certainty is not what it denotes: more a goal than an end point.

All the best,
Nonoise

Mr. T, I'm sure that you are familiar with the old saying about there being only two things in life that are certain.

When it comes to everything else in life, we deal with and make judgments and decisions that involve uncertainties, probabilities, shades of gray, and matters of degree. The better informed those judgments are, and the greater the amount of information that is available upon which to base them, and the better our understanding of that information, the greater the likelihood that those judgments will be correct.

Fabulous posts, Bryon!!

Best regards,
-- Al

Mrtennis,
I'll see your syloogism and raise some Yogism:
There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell them.
It's Bryon not Byron!

the question connoted in the thread

"are you a verificationist ?"

begs the question of a definitive method of verification.

if you are trying to verify a perception, it seems that there is no way to do it which yields certainty of results.

the world is a stochastic environment, where probability rules. so, you can not be sure, or, certain that you have verified something. there is always some probability of misperception when you attempt to coroborate, or even replicate someone's perception.