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.
lacee
07-04-12: Almarg
Objectivists are frequently mischaracterized as believing that if something isn't measurable, it isn't audible... the phrase "discoverable by science"...does not mean "has been discovered by science."
This is a point worth expanding upon. The difference between "discovered" and "discoverable" reflects two different views of science. The first view is that science is...

1. Static.
2. Reductionistic.
3. Dogmatic.

The second view is that science is...

1. Revisable.
2. Expansible.
3. Provisional.

There is truth in both views, insofar as older scientists tend to be more entrenched in their views than younger ones, a point made famously in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The entrenchment of *some* scientists can give the impression that science is static, reductionistic, and dogmatic.

But when you look at science as a whole over a long period of time, it becomes clear that, however entrenched some scientists may be, their ideas will ALWAYS be revised, elaborated, or altogether displaced by future science. This is evident throughout the history of physics, which was repeatedly transformed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg to the host of scientists working on Unified Field Theory. This is just one of many examples of how science is revisable, expansible, and provisional.

The revisability, expansibility, and provisionality of science is relevant to debates between Objectivists and Subjectivists. Subjectivists sometimes misrepresent Objectivists as being uniformly rigid, reductionistic, or dogmatic. No doubt there are some Objectivists who behave that way, but that behavior isn't a result of their Objectivism. It's a result of their entrenchment. And that's something that can happen to anybody, Objectivist or not.

Bryon
Bryon,

This may be an example of "entrenched Objectivism":
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/28/11920006-16-year-olds-equations-set-off-buzz-over-325-year-old-physics-puzzler.

It seems to have set off a firestorm as to the intent of the teenager and the relevance of his discovery. Apparently there are some big egos in the field of science.

All the best,
Nonoise
Michael Berry's comment got the Newton/boy genius thing right. A good bit of hype to boost the substance in that story....

The devil is always in the details. Abstract models are always much easier to get right reliably than detailed ones. That's one reason why Newton's and other aged cornerstone principles like it stick. They are teh most reliable models to apply generally but do not account for many additional factors that exist in reality that others factor in as well over time depending on the need/application. The greatest and most long lived theories will always be the ones with broad application and value. THe more esoteric things (fancy fuses?), eh, maybe not so much.
It would be interesting to see where our military falls on this issue. Having a simplified guidance system (thanks kid!) would make it easier to hit their target(s).

Our military (Pentagon & DOD) already buys into global warming as do all the major insurers and underwriters and have contingency plans to deal with it. They looked at the science and sidestepped the hype.

If they start hitting things more accurately, on a continuous basis, more power to the kid. :-)

All the best,
Nonoise
We argue because the alternative of pulling out a 45 and silencing the other party does not go down well with friends and family, whether ours or the former annoyance.