Nonoise,
Agree that we all have our dark sides. The key is how one manages it.
Agree that we all have our dark sides. The key is how one manages it.
why do we argue?
I suppose it's human nature?
Not everyone can get along,at least all of the time.
Squablles occur in the best of families,sometimes over big issues, sometimes over small ones.
So why should the audio "family" be any different?
Some forums have gone to great pains to cleanse their sites and free them from confrontations between audiophiles who can't see eye to eye, or perhaps we should say, ear to ear.
But where's the harm in all that squabbling? Really?
If someone finds it offensive, then why continue to read it, like a moth drawn to the flame,if you think it's going to harm you, don't enter.
No one is making you.
Then if you feel you have to post your objections to objectional comments(who made you the boss?)then you are not the solution ,you're just adding to the problem.
Like bringing gasoline to put out the fire.
You're going to be on one side or the other,or perhaps you are the "let's kiss and make up type" "can't we all be friends?"audiophile who has only everyone's best wishes at heart.
There's always a "mom" to come between two fighting brothers isn't there,and you know she can't take sides,calling a truce is her job.
But until the real issues have been addressed, the argument is never over.
It's always there under the surface,just waiting to boil over given half the chance.Power cords one day, fuses the next, and demagging lp's? Please!
It usually starts in audio forums when some chump posts that a piece of something that cost more than it should, made an improvement that someone who wasn't there to hear it says it didn't.
Get the gist?
I did it, I heard it, I was there,who are you to tell me I didn't hear it, and how dare you call me dillusional?That's the response to the first response from the folks who know it just can't be real.
Surely if I am half a man, I'll have to make some sort of reply.And reply to the reply and on and on again and again.
I'll have to try to proove that I heard what I heard, but you need scientific proof.
Obviously I can't provide any, I am a chump, not a scientist, I bought the snake oil didn't I?
So on and on it goes and intensifies until enough is enough and two or more members of the family are banished from the fold.
The community all the better for it, or so it tells itself.
But is it?
If everything in this hobby is scrutinized to the point that if there isn't a scientific white paper to back up the claims, how much of what we take for granted today would be lost to the audio community at large?
Zip cord,stock giveaway cords of all srtipe would be all that we would have.There'd be no equipment stands or various footers, no isolation devices of the electrical and mechanical persuasion,no spikes,no fancy metals,in short there would be no aftermarket anything.
It would be a 100% snake free world,a totalitarian utopia for the less than feeble minded audiophiles that there are so many of. Those foolish folks who thrive on fairy dust need to be saved from their own foolish and wasteful ways.
At least that's the way I've seen it from my perspective.
I know it's too late to save me.Salvation passed me by decades ago.
Not everyone can get along,at least all of the time.
Squablles occur in the best of families,sometimes over big issues, sometimes over small ones.
So why should the audio "family" be any different?
Some forums have gone to great pains to cleanse their sites and free them from confrontations between audiophiles who can't see eye to eye, or perhaps we should say, ear to ear.
But where's the harm in all that squabbling? Really?
If someone finds it offensive, then why continue to read it, like a moth drawn to the flame,if you think it's going to harm you, don't enter.
No one is making you.
Then if you feel you have to post your objections to objectional comments(who made you the boss?)then you are not the solution ,you're just adding to the problem.
Like bringing gasoline to put out the fire.
You're going to be on one side or the other,or perhaps you are the "let's kiss and make up type" "can't we all be friends?"audiophile who has only everyone's best wishes at heart.
There's always a "mom" to come between two fighting brothers isn't there,and you know she can't take sides,calling a truce is her job.
But until the real issues have been addressed, the argument is never over.
It's always there under the surface,just waiting to boil over given half the chance.Power cords one day, fuses the next, and demagging lp's? Please!
It usually starts in audio forums when some chump posts that a piece of something that cost more than it should, made an improvement that someone who wasn't there to hear it says it didn't.
Get the gist?
I did it, I heard it, I was there,who are you to tell me I didn't hear it, and how dare you call me dillusional?That's the response to the first response from the folks who know it just can't be real.
Surely if I am half a man, I'll have to make some sort of reply.And reply to the reply and on and on again and again.
I'll have to try to proove that I heard what I heard, but you need scientific proof.
Obviously I can't provide any, I am a chump, not a scientist, I bought the snake oil didn't I?
So on and on it goes and intensifies until enough is enough and two or more members of the family are banished from the fold.
The community all the better for it, or so it tells itself.
But is it?
If everything in this hobby is scrutinized to the point that if there isn't a scientific white paper to back up the claims, how much of what we take for granted today would be lost to the audio community at large?
Zip cord,stock giveaway cords of all srtipe would be all that we would have.There'd be no equipment stands or various footers, no isolation devices of the electrical and mechanical persuasion,no spikes,no fancy metals,in short there would be no aftermarket anything.
It would be a 100% snake free world,a totalitarian utopia for the less than feeble minded audiophiles that there are so many of. Those foolish folks who thrive on fairy dust need to be saved from their own foolish and wasteful ways.
At least that's the way I've seen it from my perspective.
I know it's too late to save me.Salvation passed me by decades ago.
- ...
- 120 posts total
As Al has already pointed out, Goodwins article is a transparent case of strawmanning, i.e. misrepresenting your opponent and then attacking that misrepresentation. Goodwins Objectivist is a gross distortion of the views of actual Objectivists, both in the world of audio and in the real world. Goodwins characterization of Objectivism also reveals a nearly complete lack of understanding of the use of that term in both philosophy and science, which is this 1. An Objectivist about X believes in OBJECTIVE FACTS about X. where 2. An objective fact is a fact that is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. So, for example, an Objectivist about chemistry believes that the facts of chemistry are independent of persons. An Objectivist about biology believes that the facts of biology are independent of persons. And so on. In this sense, nearly ALL scientists are Objectivists. The one significant exception are physicists who question Objectivism on the grounds of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle. But even the breakdown of Objectivism at the lowest levels of microphysics does not cast doubt on the validity of Objectivism at higher levels of science, i.e. macrophysics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, neuroscience, etc.. Objectivism is not only the prevailing view of scientific facts, it is arguably the SINE QUA NON of science. The contrast to all this is Subjectivism 3. A Subjectivist about X does NOT believe in objective facts about X. So, for example, a Subjectivist about morality does not believe in objective facts about morality. A Subjectivist about art does not believe in objective facts about art. IMO, the difference between Objectivism and Subjectivism in the world of audio is very similar 4. An Objectivist about audio topic X believes in objective facts about topic X. 5. A Subjectivist about audio topic X does not believe in objective facts about topic X. With that in mind, nearly all audiophiles are BOTH Objectivist and Subjectivists, as Mapman pointed out. If the topic is How much harmonic distortion does this amplifier have? then nearly all audiophiles are Objectivists. That is, they believe that there is an objective fact about the quantity of an amplifiers harmonic distortion. If, on the other hand, the topic is Who is the best blues musician of all time? then nearly all audiophiles are Subjectivists. That is, they do NOT believe that there is an objective fact about who is the best blues musician. Audiophiles split into Objectivists and Subjectivists when the topic is one where it's unclear whether there are objective facts, e.g. Can an AC outlet affect sound quality? For topics like those, the debate between Objectivism and Subjectivism tends to turn into a debate between two opposing views of knowledge 6. The Objectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there are objective facts about how, facts that are DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. 7. The Subjectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there need not be objective facts about how, and hence whatever facts exist NEED NOT BE DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. In other words, for topics for which there are no definitive answers, audiophiles tend to split along the lines of HOW MUCH CAN BE KNOWN BY SCIENCE. The opposing views are then labelled Objectivism and Subjectivism. One last thing... As Goodwin's article illustrates, Objectivism is often falsely equated with other views: 8. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Skepticism, i.e. a default ATTITUDE OF DOUBT. Some Objectivists are Skeptics, some are not. 9. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Verificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE. Some Objectivists are Verificationists, some are not. 10. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Justificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is PROVEN WITH CERTAINTY. Some Objectivists are Justificationists, some are not. As I hope is obvious by now, Goodwins depiction of Objectivism is not only uncharitable, it is reductionistic, naïve, and facile. Objectivism is a view of far greater complexity, depth, and nuance than she presents, and probably than she understands. Bryon |
A great analysis, Bryon, as usual! I think that one especially good insight, among several that were contained in your post, is: Audiophiles split into Objectivists and Subjectivists when the topic is one where it's unclear whether there are objective facts, e.g. Can an AC outlet affect sound quality? For topics like those, the debate between Objectivism and Subjectivism tends to turn into a debate between two opposing views of knowledgeObjectivists are frequently mischaracterized as believing that if something isn't measurable, it isn't audible. Ms. Goodwin herself stated in the article that "The problems I encounter with many objectivists on the internet has to do with their mindset, they are closed-minded to anything sounding different if it cannot be measured." Which leads me to emphasize your careful use of the phrase "discoverable by science," and to note that that does not mean "has been discovered by science." Best, -- Al |
That was a succinct clarification of the technically correct usage of Objectivist & Subjectivist Bryon. Your education is evident. When I used the terms in reference to audio "personalities," they referenced the differences between the two encampments. As you say, Objectivists believe independent, objective attributes verifiable by science are the sole determinant of why any given piece of audio gear sounds the way it does. We need a better term than Subjectivist for those who have take more nuanced or less rigid views of audio reality. As to your point #7, it's not so much that I think "whatever facts exist need not be discoverable by science" as that I'm willing to consider that science (in its current state of development) can't explain/define all the parameters that affect why something sounds the way it does. Admittedly, the rational part of my brain rebels at this. After all, many/most electrical engineers believe why a device sounds the way it does can be explained by an electrical circuit's characteristics of current, voltage, impedance, resistance, etc. People get argumentative when concepts like skin effect, eddy currents, conductivity of different metals, etc. (whose abilities to audibly affect a circuit are non-verfiable) are brought into the discussion. As your points 8,9, & 10 demonstrate, there can be different thresholds of verification or understanding before any given individual is willing to concede something is "real." |
It's quite the discipline to analyze a situation before speaking as well as Bryon and Al do. Weigh the facts, consider the angles, draw insight, analyze still more, and compare before posting. This has all been like a min-classroom in critical thinking and I feel better for it. I like to think I have feet in both camps, depending on the topic. As one physicist at CERN jokingly said about the boggs particle they found, " It's more like that godd*mned particle than the god particle". Something was there, all the time. It just took a whole lot of patience and effort to find it. I feel the same about this hobby (within reason). All the best, Nonoise |
- 120 posts total