Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

[JP]

They think that what you are calling "their truth" is THE TRUTH. They care about THE TRUTH. They are simply mistaken about what is true.

Really? Gosh, that completely escaped me.

Of course they believe their truth is the truth, and of course they care about that truth. But in this population their truth isn’t the truth in regard to the subject, and it’s typically only their perception of truth that they care about. Hence…

And in this population, as you yourself have pointed out, they tend to actively reject any consideration that they may be mistaken, and actively refuse to explore testing that likelihood. Hence…

As a juxtaposition, if I’m told or see evidence that I may be mistaken, I’ll expend the effort to research how I may be mistaken and reconcile my belief. I began exploring and testing common audiophile beliefs because one person (the first to do so) told me I was mistaken. Hence…

My opinion is that when someone is mistaken, is told that they are mistaken, is told how they are mistaken, and is told how to correct that mistake, and yet refuse to even consider the possibility, that person does not want to know the truth.

The “wait” bit is a non sequitur. There’s a world of difference between being accidentally mistaken, and actively refusing the possibility that you are mistaken. That’s more in the realm of ego and false pride than common bias anyway.

As is typically the case, the issue is not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, I simply don’t agree with what you’re saying. Remedial psychology lessons and endless repetition will not reconcile that.

 

[JP]

What is "the" truth?

Respectfully, I think your argument has gone off the rails a bit, or perhaps just devolved into splitting semantic hairs. Truth (writ large) in the context of this discussion is what is verifiable through scientific method. If someone either denies the validity of science or isn't interested in whether their beliefs are contradicted by it, then they can't lay claim to seeking Truth in matters such as what is actually (reliably) audible.

Thank you.

 

[JSmith]

Maybe ASR is eating some of Stereophile's lunch.

Well that would mean taking customers/business off a business to increase profits... ASR is not a business or for profit, so that is a bit apples to oranges.

What may have happened is more subscribers have gradually started to realise that the wool has been pulled over their eyes for many many years and sought proper information elsewhere.

Of course they believe their truth is the truth, and of course they care about that truth.

I agree with the majority of your post, however this discussion of "truth" is a misnomer... truth is not fact, it may include fact however can also include belief that is genuine to that person. I submit that was is sought at ASR are facts... those that reject proven facts are on a very different path.


JSmith

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Honestly, I have no idea what the demographics are on ASR. Looking at signature lines, there are plenty of folks who have high-end $$$ gear. Not everyone here is exclusively interested in $100 DACs and $200 amps. Even Amir has some nice "Stereophile grade" stuff. And sure, there are members here that are interested in the best measured performance for the lowest possible cost, but do we know what % subscribe to this ideology?

I would have thought the majority, else they would simply stick to Stereophile, or whatever.

 

[JP]

I agree with the majority of your post, however this discussion of "truth" is a misnomer... truth is not fact, it may include fact however can also include belief that is genuine to that person. I submit that was is sought at ASR are facts... those that reject proven facts are on a very different path.

Agree. That‘s the very distinction the paragraph you quoted from was making - from whose or what perspective is this supposed “truth”.

 

[krabapple]

I got yer T

Agree. That‘s the very distinction the paragraph you quoted from was making - from whose or what perspective is this supposed “truth”.

I got yer truth right here:

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for the reply JP.

My opinion is that when someone is mistaken, is told that they are mistaken, is told how they are mistaken, and is told how to correct that mistake, and yet refuse to even consider the possibility, that person does not want to know the truth.

The “wait” bit is a non sequitur. There’s a world of difference between being accidentally mistaken, and actively refusing the possibility that you are mistaken. That’s more in the realm of ego and false pride than common bias anyway.

As is typically the case, the issue is not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, I simply don’t agree with what you’re saying. Remedial psychology lessons and endless repetition will not reconcile that.

As I expressed, I have a different view. Since the 80's I've been fascinated with "why people believe weird things" - everything from religions, to cults, to new age ideas to conspiracy theories, you name it. Having been interacting with people who have beliefs that I hold to be unreasonable, and also just paying attention to what we know about human bias, has been very enlightening IMO.

It's most eye-opening, I think, to be on the receiving end. So for instance I've had many a debate with my fellow skeptics/atheists over the subject of Free Will, where I defend compatibilism and they defend Free Will Skepticism (No Free Will). As it happens, it is a very intuition-driven issue. When I have "clashed" with the same folks yet again it feels bizarre, as in "how can you possibly still be making the same argument when the flaw and your blind spot has been pointed out ad nauseam?" At some point it feels like debating a fundamentalist who "doesn't want to know the truth." And the other side feels exactly the same way about me! Because, after all...WE think we are being reasonable, WE are right, therefore it can't be "reason" driving the other guy, but rather we attribute psychology "Dishonest/refusal to be wrong/won't look at the evidence!"


That is simply what bias looks like from the outside. It's typically invisible to us. Even in this conversation if we continue we'd likely continue to disagree, and it could feel ever more like the other person is not amenable to reason. How many times have I had similar debates with the same folks here over issues? Since I think my position is reasonable it is very attempting to attribute psychology - "clearly they don't really care about the truth since it's been presented so many times!" But, no, this is simply what it looks like, very often, from each side.

So...again...I strongly disagree with your position. The audiophile I quoted believes he has The Truth just as strongly as you do. And the fact he may be mistaken, or has been mistaken in his method of getting information, doesn't entail he doesn't care about what is True. I think that is, frankly, a bit of a self-serving attribution and too easy to fall in to that way of diagnosing someone who holds a different viewpoint. It makes one feel more virtuous, at the expense, I think, of really being open to how people, including ourselves, get stuck in our beliefs.

And, yes, from your viewpoint that may be more "Remedial psychology," but since you've refused to accept the truth of my position, I have to conclude you are not really Interested In The Truth.

 

[jasonhanjk]

1W is 0dBW.
150W is 21.76dBW and 300W is 24.77W.

Nowadays dBW is seldom used for selling audio product but dBW calculation are facts, not rubbish assumptions.

 

[JP]

Thanks for the reply JP.



As I expressed, I have a different view. Since the 80's I've been fascinated with "why people believe weird things" - everything from religions, to cults, to new age ideas to conspiracy theories, you name it. Having been interacting with people who have beliefs that I hold to be unreasonable, and also just paying attention to what we know about human bias, has been very enlightening IMO.

It's most eye-opening, I think, to be on the receiving end. So for instance I've had many a debate with my fellow skeptics/atheists over the subject of Free Will, where I defend compatibilism and they defend Free Will Skepticism (No Free Will). As it happens, it is a very intuition-driven issue. When I have "clashed" with the same folks yet again it feels bizarre, as in "how can you possibly still be making the same argument when the flaw and your blind spot has been pointed out ad nauseam?" At some point it feels like debating a fundamentalist who "doesn't want to know the truth." And the other side feels exactly the same way about me! Because, after all...WE think we are being reasonable, WE are right, therefore it can't be "reason" driving the other guy, but rather we attribute psychology "Dishonest/refusal to be wrong/won't look at the evidence!"


That is simply what bias looks like from the outside. It's typically invisible to us. Even in this conversation if we continue we'd likely continue to disagree, and it could feel ever more like the other person is not amenable to reason. How many times have I had similar debates with the same folks here over issues? Since I think my position is reasonable it is very attempting to attribute psychology - "clearly they don't really care about the truth since it's been presented so many times!" But, no, this is simply what it looks like, very often, from each side.

So...again...I strongly disagree with your position. The audiophile I quoted believes he has The Truth just as strongly as you do. And the fact he may be mistaken, or has been mistaken in his method of getting information, doesn't entail he doesn't care about what is True. I think that is, frankly, a bit of a self-serving attribution and too easy to fall in to that way of diagnosing someone who holds a different viewpoint. It makes one feel more virtuous, at the expense, I think, of really being open to how people, including ourselves, get stuck in our beliefs.

And, yes, from your viewpoint that may be more "Remedial psychology," but since you've refused to accept the truth of my position, I have to conclude you are not really Interested In The Truth.

You're just repeating what you've already said. If at some point you want to actually discuss my point instead browbeating me with truisms that aren't contextually relevant, let me know.

 

[MattHooper]

Respectfully, I think your argument has gone off the rails a bit, or perhaps just devolved into splitting semantic hairs. Truth (writ large) in the context of this discussion is what is verifiable through scientific method. If someone either denies the validity of science or isn't interested in whether their beliefs are contradicted by it, then they can't lay claim to seeking Truth in matters such as what is actually (reliably) audible.

It is rigging the game to say "one is only REALLY seeking the truth IF they are using the method I believe leads to the truth." No, people care about the truth, but can vary in believing they have it, or how to get it. (That's why I have been deliberate in saying that many people with false believes - including cable luvin' audiophiles - care that their beliefs are true. They prefer that their beliefs are try, rather than believing falsehoods. This was to avoid the misleading assumptions like the above).

You should see the flaw in that position pretty easily: If we take what you just wrote seriously, then before the scientific method was developed, no one ever sought The Truth, or cared that their beliefs were true. (Ancient philosophers, among many, would like to have a word with you...)

Your (and JPs) position downplays the role of "mistakes" and "bias" in our attempt to justify our beliefs.

So, for instance, think of parents on a camping trip whose young child has wandered off in to the forest and they are frantically looking for her. As it happens, they made a wrong inference and headed west in the forest whereas their lost daughter is actually wandering east. Now, because the path the parents have chosen won't lead them to The Truth of where their daughter is, we wouldn't say "clearly they aren't REALLY seeking their daughter. That's not the path to get there, so they don't really care about the truth of where she is!"

We agree there I presume.

What this tells us is that "making mistakes" leading to false beliefs is completely compatible with"Caring About What Is True." (What you want to call seeking the truth).

I mean, if one doesn't accept this, it would entail that every time any scientist has arrived at a mistaken conclusion, through making one or more mistakes along the way, he/she/the community "wasn't seeking the truth." That would be a ridiculous view of human beings.

Now you no doubt want to say, as JP would, that "Well, we HAVE a method that we know is more reliable at getting at truth, so if someone isn't using THAT method, then they can't really be seeking the truth!"***

The first thing to note: There are disagreements among scientists in various fields even about their methods and theories! Does it make sense for them all to diagnose each other as "not caring about the truth?" or to acknowledge they are simply disagreeing on what aspect might be more important in their theories, method, in seeking the truth?

But the main point I want to make is: The flaw there is to remain blind to the role of "mistakes" and "bias."

Humans are fallible. We aren't perfect reasoning machines. For the very same reason someone can still make mistakes, and come to wrong conclusions about ANYTHING - even while attempting to use a strong method of inquiry (e.g. science) - people can ALSO be mistaken about which method of inquiry is better or more likely to lead them to the truth!

This should be incredibly obvious if you just look around the world and see how many people devote their lives to belief systems and alternative epistemic concepts (e.g. religions among countless examples). Even philosophers who devote their lives to figuring out what can be known and how we can know it, come up with differing epistemologies! It would be utterly begging the question, and a facile view of human truth-seeking, for one philosopher to diagnose all the other philosophers as "not really "Well, if the rest of you guys really cared about the truth, you'd accept my arguments!"

People literally die for their mistaken beliefs, even their children die - based on religious beliefs, on thinking someone had the power to heal who did not heal, maybe based on the advise of psychics, or bogus medical cures, you name it. It's not because they don't care about the truth - it's because they have made MISTAKES leading to the wrong path to truth. And human bias greases this ride for everyone.

 

[MattHooper]

You're just repeating what you've already said. If at some point you want to actually discuss my point instead browbeating me with truisms that aren't contextually relevant, let me know.

Could you re-visit your tag-line once in a while, please?

I have directly addressed your point. Your argument seems to boil down to "There’s a world of difference between being accidentally mistaken, and actively refusing the possibility that you are mistaken."

My replies have argued that you are tending to misdiagnose that someone has moved from "accidentally mistaken" to "actively avoiding the truth - in the sense of not seeking or caring about the truth of their beliefs."

I am arguing that people who may LOOK to you like they have abandoned caring about the truth because they have not changed in the face of evidence/argument, are STILL in the grips of being "accidentally" mistaken. They continue to be the victims of their own biases and bad reasoning with does NOT equate to "not caring about/seeking the truth." They continue to seek the truth - e.g. about what cables will sound best in their system - but in an honestly mistaken way.

You write as if to presume that if someone has been exposed to lots of evidence and arguments against their position ...then it must be because they "Aren't Really Seeking The Truth" or don't care about the truth. Otherwise, they'd adopt your thinking and methods (e.g. measurements! Scientific controls!).

This is naive. For the reasons I have been giving.

I mean, I've given you plenty of reasons to give up your naive position, and yet you still hold on to it. Why? Well, from my point of view, it's starting to look like you really don't care about what is reasonable or true about human psychology at this point. You are just protecting your own belief, and don't really care about the truth.

Are you ready to accept that as the correct diagnosis of what is going on here?

Likely not.

More likely is that you actually believe in your position, because you haven't found my arguments compelling enough to change them.

Once you feel in yourself the answer, that you think you are probably right and care about being right, realize other people you believe to be in error are thinking the same thing. If I continued to spam the thread making the same claims, you are unlikely to change your mind. I could have the feeling "The error in JP's thinking has been pointed out so many times the ONLY reason he continues to reject the truth is that he doesn't really seek the truth!"

Yet you will feel your view hasn't changed because you've simply rejected an unconvincing argument, over and over. That's what the cable-believing audiophiles feel too. They've seen the arguments against their position: they don't feel convinced. It's well known that it is VERY difficult for people to change their minds, particularly about issues that are very important to them. Biases pop up to protect and direct our beliefs. That is NOT the same as "not caring about or seeking the truth." Biases and errors of thought infect our attempts to know what is true! We really can be honestly mistaken...over and over...including in what we think delivers us truth.

So, yes some purely subjectivist audiophiles actually do have trouble acknowledging the possibility they can be mistaken that they "heard a difference." But that does not automatically entail "therefore they don't care about the truth of their beliefs." That is derived FROM their honest epistemological mistake: That their perception is reliable enough to tell them the truth about what is audible or not. They have made many mistakes to reach that view...ignorant mistakes about what science does or does not know, what science can or can not know, etc. But they reached their epistemology via bias and making honest mistakes in reasoning, just as anyone makes honest mistakes in reasoning.

 

[DonR]

1W is 0dBW.
150W is 21.76dBW and 300W is 24.77W.

Nowadays dBW is seldom used for selling audio product but dBW calculation are facts, not rubbish assumptions.

err... 24.77dbW??

 

[JP]

You write as if to presume that if someone has been exposed to lots of evidence and arguments against their position ...then it must be because they "Aren't Really Seeking The Truth" or don't care about the truth. Otherwise, they'd adopt your thinking and methods (e.g. measurements! Scientific controls!).

This is naive. For the reasons I have been giving.

It‘s also an egregious misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[Ken1951]

It‘s also an egregious misrepresentation of what I said.

Which is why I made the decision ages ago to save pixels and space and use the ignore function.

 

[preload]

Out of curiosity, why is it so troubling to folks here that Stereophile is printing information that is not scientifically valid? Why does it matter if Joe the Subjectivists decides to blow $1,000 on some cables with boxes on the end? It's not your money, after all. And it doesn't cost you anything.

If you're upset about this, are you also upset about all the unscientific information that has been circulating on social media (including the news) about medical science over the past 2 years? Are you also upset about the conspiracy theories that, for example, led an armed shooter to hold up a pizza restaurant to find the network of child molesters in the basement? Or to blow up cell phone towers? Now this type of misinformation directly affects each and every one of us. I could care less about people blowing a fortune on audio tweaks, which, if anything, helps our economy.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Out of curiosity, why is it so troubling to folks here that Stereophile is printing information that is not scientifically valid? Why does it matter if Joe the Subjectivists decides to blow $1,000 on some cables with boxes on the end? It's not your money, after all. And it doesn't cost you anything.

If you're upset about this, are you also upset about all the unscientific information that has been circulating on social media (including the news) about medical science over the past 2 years? Are you also upset about the conspiracy theories that, for example, led an armed shooter to hold up a pizza restaurant to find the network of child molesters in the basement? Or to blow up cell phone towers? Now this type of misinformation directly affects each and every one of us. I could care less about people blowing a fortune on audio tweaks, which, if anything, helps our economy.

Oddly, your post seems to imply, you just don't "get", ASR. Very strange.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Out of curiosity, why is it so troubling to folks here that Stereophile is printing information that is not scientifically valid? Why does it matter if Joe the Subjectivists decides to blow $1,000 on some cables with boxes on the end? It's not your money, after all. And it doesn't cost you anything.

If you're upset about this, are you also upset about all the unscientific information that has been circulating on social media (including the news) about medical science over the past 2 years? Are you also upset about the conspiracy theories that, for example, led an armed shooter to hold up a pizza restaurant to find the network of child molesters in the basement? Or to blow up cell phone towers? Now this type of misinformation directly affects each and every one of us. I could care less about people blowing a fortune on audio tweaks, which, if anything, helps our economy.

Yes. Lies are lies and b.s. is b.s., no matter what area of human endeavor. They all count. But by common consent and the rules laid down by our host, who owns this site, there are many subjects that are considered off-topic.
This is Audio Science Review. We are concerned with audio, not all those other ways in which misinformation can spread and affect human behavior.

Jim

 

[Vacceo]

Out of curiosity, why is it so troubling to folks here that Stereophile is printing information that is not scientifically valid? Why does it matter if Joe the Subjectivists decides to blow $1,000 on some cables with boxes on the end? It's not your money, after all. And it doesn't cost you anything.

If you're upset about this, are you also upset about all the unscientific information that has been circulating on social media (including the news) about medical science over the past 2 years? Are you also upset about the conspiracy theories that, for example, led an armed shooter to hold up a pizza restaurant to find the network of child molesters in the basement? Or to blow up cell phone towers? Now this type of misinformation directly affects each and every one of us. I could care less about people blowing a fortune on audio tweaks, which, if anything, helps our economy.

Because bullshit is what systemically holds back the industry. Instead of investing in accuracy, power delivery, distortion lowering, shape and form factor innovation, we get the perverse incentive of a Gryphon useless boat anchor that effectively gets no real improvement over an Audiophonics amp.

If the excellence of KEF, Genelec, Purifi, Hypex and some other names who do care about science and engineering were the lauded norm, we'd all be far better served than with audio homeopathy.

 

[preload]

Oddly, your post seems to imply, you just don't "get", ASR. Very strange.

You're implying that you "get" ASR, so perhaps you should explain.
If people are open-minded and interested, the information and the experts are here on ASR.
But if people are not interested in the "science" of audio reproduction, and they choose to believe in things that are not scientific, why should you care?

Yes. Lies are lies and b.s. is b.s., no matter what area of human endeavor. They all count. But by common consent and the rules laid down by our host, who owns this site, there are many subjects that are considered off-topic.

Lies are lies, but not all lies are equivalent in terms of their potential harm. My question is simply this: if people are so bothered by audio lies, which have little real world consequence, are they then outraged about lies about medical science and conspiracies that DO have real world consequence? Because if the answer is no, that can provide a real introspective window into why the audio science "deniers" believe what they choose to believe.

 

[ahofer]

Out of curiosity, why is it so troubling to folks here that Stereophile is printing information that is not scientifically valid? Why does it matter if Joe the Subjectivists decides to blow $1,000 on some cables with boxes on the end? It's not your money, after all. And it doesn't cost you anything.

If you're upset about this, are you also upset about all the unscientific information that has been circulating on social media (including the news) about medical science over the past 2 years? Are you also upset about the conspiracy theories that, for example, led an armed shooter to hold up a pizza restaurant to find the network of child molesters in the basement? Or to blow up cell phone towers? Now this type of misinformation directly affects each and every one of us. I could care less about people blowing a fortune on audio tweaks, which, if anything, helps our economy.

I can be upset about many things, or no things. Being upset is a non-rival good, in economic terms.

The idea that it is rival is often used in social media as an attempt to discredit. Along with the closely related "failure to condemn X" technique: "how can you condemn Y when I never heard you condemn X"!!

s'all BS.