• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

Status
Not open for further replies.

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
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.

And, as usual, you simply imply it's a strawman, without explaining precisely how it departed from your "real" argument.

I presume you are seizing on what was unstated in that quote.

But, here, in case you actually missed the exact meaning, I'll clarify:

"You write as if to presume that if someone has been exposed to lots of evidence and arguments against their position ...and has not changed his 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!)."

I admit that the above version with the bolded inclusion is more clear than what you quoted. However, given all I have written, the meaning should have been obvious nonetheless: that the "someone" I referenced was the audiophile we've been discussing who has not change his erroneous beliefs and methods in the face of having being corrected. The one who even refuses to think he could be wrong! Who else would I have been referencing? The context is in the very post you snipped that from, as well as all my others.

So, with that clarification, will you admit this is a fair encapsulation of the position you've been arguing?

Let's remember:

You quoted Ornette approvingly saying "thank you" when he said "Truth (writ large) in the context of this discussion is what is verifiable through scientific method."

And in the quote you "thanked" him for he also clarified: "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."

And you re-iterated your position:

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."

So, taken together, the most reasonable reading of what you have been arguing is that:

1. If it has been explained to an audiophile how and why he is wrong - which of course would involve argumentation and one would think evidence,

and

2. also how to correct those mistakes - on your account, this will involve the scientific method if one is seeking the truth, presumably in the audio context measurements/scientific controls. Right?

But this audiophile has refused to accept all this argumentation and correction, and still won't consider that their beliefs and method could be wrong....then:

3. That audiophile isn't really seeking the truth/does not want to know the truth.



I defy anyone to draw a more reasonable summary of what you have been writing.

And that is EXACTLY what I have been arguing against all along. All my replies have been directed at that position.

To imply I'm "egregiously misrepresenting" you or guilty of straw-manning is disingenuous, to say the least.
 
Last edited:

Ornette

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
82
Likes
244
And, as usual, you simply imply it's a strawman, without explaining precisely how it departed from your "real" argument.

I presume you are seizing on what was unstated in that quote.

But, here, in case you actually missed the exact meaning, I'll clarify:

"You write as if to presume that if someone has been exposed to lots of evidence and arguments against their position ...and has not changed his 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!)."

I admit that the above version with the bolded inclusion is more clear than what you quoted. However, given all I have written, the meaning should have been obvious nonetheless: that the "someone" I referenced was the audiophile we've been discussing who has not change his erroneous beliefs and methods in the face of having being corrected. The one who even refuses to think he could be wrong! Who else would I have been referencing? The context is in the very post you snipped that from, as well as all my others.

So, with that clarification, will you admit this is a fair encapsulation of the position you've been arguing?

Let's remember:

You quoted Ornette approvingly saying "thank you" when he said "Truth (writ large) in the context of this discussion is what is verifiable through scientific method."

And in the quote you "thanked" him for he also clarified: "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."

And you re-iterated your position:

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."

So, taken together, the most reasonable reading of what you have been arguing is that:

1. If it has been explained to an audiophile how and why he is wrong - which of course would involve argumentation and one would think evidence,

and

2. also how to correct those mistakes - on your account, this will involve the scientific method if one is seeking the truth, presumably in the audio context measurements/scientific controls. Right?

But this audiophile has refused to accept all this argumentation and correction, and still won't consider that their beliefs and method could be wrong....then:

3. That audiophile isn't really seeking the truth/does not want to know the truth.



I defy anyone to draw a more reasonable summary of what you have been writing.

And that is EXACTLY what I have been arguing against all along. All my replies have been directed at that position.

To imply I'm "egregiously misrepresenting" you or guilty of straw-manning is disingenuous, to say the least.
May I suggest that instead of litigating whose response to which point is more of a strawman, etc., we simply try to distill the essence of the debate, and see if there is any basis to continue it?

In your original reply to me, you stated: "No, people care about the truth, but can vary in believing they have it, or how to get it."

You seem to be stating your conclusion as an a priori axiom. What about chronic liars? Do they "care about the truth"? How about people who subscribe to crackpot political theories against any logic or evidence? Do they "care about the truth"? Further, if there's no common agreement between parties about "how to get" truth or knowing when they have it, then all truth is subjective. At which point, our present discussion would be either meaningless or entirely about semantics, sorry to say.
 

trackrat888

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2022
Messages
39
Likes
26
May I suggest that instead of litigating whose response to which point is more of a strawman, etc., we simply try to distill the essence of the debate, and see if there is any basis to continue it?

In your original reply to me, you stated: "No, people care about the truth, but can vary in believing they have it, or how to get it."

You seem to be stating your conclusion as an a priori axiom. What about chronic liars? Do they "care about the truth"? How about people who subscribe to crackpot political theories against any logic or evidence? Do they "care about the truth"? Further, if there's no common agreement between parties about "how to get" truth or knowing when they have it, then all truth is subjective. At which point, our present discussion would be either meaningless or entirely about semantics, sorry to say.
I think the word "strawman" should be a banned term. All that term does is instigate the person on the other end of the stick.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
May I suggest that instead of litigating whose response to which point is more of a strawman, etc., we simply try to distill the essence of the debate, and see if there is any basis to continue it?

Certainly that's what we want. That's why I keep trying to distill the issue!

Distilling the issue involves distilling what is actually under dispute, what we are disagreeing about, but that can be undermined when one side continually plays "Hide My Point" or will pretend their point has not been addressed.


In your original reply to me, you stated: "No, people care about the truth, but can vary in believing they have it, or how to get it."

You seem to be stating your conclusion as an a priori axiom.

It isn't stated as an a priori axiom. It's stated as a proposition to be argued for. Which is exactly what I've been doing for why people tend to care about the truth, and why our standard biases can make it look to someone else that we don't really care about the truth. Someone with a better argument can explain to me why I'm wrong. I'm all ears.

It's a generalization, that generally speaking people do care if their beliefs are true, especially beliefs that are deeply held or a focus of lots of their attention (whether it's a religion or a much loved hobby or whatever).

There will always be exceptions, but I think they will be relatively rare.

What about chronic liars? Do they "care about the truth"?

Even chronic liars likely care about the truth of their beliefs, which is my point.

The liar exploits the fact people generally care about the truth. If you ask the liar "have you sent me the money you owe for the item I sold you?" and the liar has not, the only reason he lies and says "yes" is because you care whether it's true or not. If you didn't care if in fact he's sent the money, he wouldn't "have" to lie and influence you to think it's true he sent the money.

Put the shoe on the other foot: If a chronic liar pays you for a used Porsche and you don't give him the car, lying to him: "I already gave you the car" do you think the liar will care about the truth of that claim or not? Will he say "Ok, I guess I have the car then?" Or will he likely dispute your lie? If you try to convince him that the Toyota corolla you gave him instead is really the Porsche he thought he was paying for...how well do you think that will go over?



How about people who subscribe to crackpot political theories against any logic or evidence? Do they "care about the truth"?

I argue that in most cases: yes they do. People really, really can believe crazy and illogical things, sincerely. Because we are not Perfectly Rational Beings - we make mistakes, and often biases hide from us those mistakes. Even when the mistakes are pointed out, there are all sorts of reasons why we may not recognize the other person is correct. That biases tend to operate in ways that can be invisible to us is something presumably well-known by folks in a "science-engineering" driven forum. And as I've said, my view also comes from decades of looking in to and interacting with people who hold what we would consider to be "crackpot" and "illogical" beliefs. I have found they are quite sincere.

For instance I have some very good friends (used to be neighbors) who are deeply in to ghosts and spirits. They are convinced we are surrounded by ghosts and convinced they see ghosts all the time. They reach these conclusions, on my account, through a faulty method of reasoning. But they are very sincere in their beliefs and act in ways incompatible with "people who don't really care their beliefs are true."

Further, if there's no common agreement between parties about "how to get" truth or knowing when they have it, then all truth is subjective. At which point, our present discussion would be either meaningless or entirely about semantics, sorry to say.

I think that misses what is going on here. The debate we are having is not between people who disagree about how to get to the truth. That's a different debate. The debate is between us folks here, where it is presumed for the sake of argument we agree that things like measurements and scientific controls are relevant for getting at the truth (or at least in gaining higher justification for a conclusion).

The debate is whether the people who do not share this epistemology - e.g. tweak-believing 'subjectivist' audiophiles - ought to be diagnosed as "not seeking the truth" or "not caring about the truth."

One side seems to be saying that if an audiophile has been presented with arguments and evidence for why his belief in implausible claims (e.g. bogus tweaks) is wrong, and how to correct it, and that audiophile continues to use the same method and believe the same falsehoods, it follows that audiophile does not really care about or is not seeking the truth.

I've argued for why I think that diagnosis is incorrect. Trying to parse it, as JP did, as saying "they think they have THEIR Truth" doesn't cut it. The think they have THE TRUTH which is why many of them will react just the same as people here would if the cable-believing audiophile said to Amir "You just have YOUR truth that the cables can't really technically make a difference. That's not THE TRUTH it's just YOUR TRUTH."

That audiophile can continue to be sincerely mistaken even in the face of counter arguments/ evidence. Our minds often malfunction when seeking the truth and our mistaken beliefs are often quite recalcitrant. This should be obvious to all of us with experience dealing with other humans, let alone anyone who inhabits the typical internet forum. Further, the stubbornness of our beliefs in the face of counter argument/evidence has demonstrated over and over in research:


And another way bias can influence our diagnosis of other people is in how we often seek self-confirmation. If you hold your ideas to be true - e.g. the scientific method is better for vetting audio claims - it is very tempting to diagnose someone who continues to disagree with you as "not caring about the truth." Because "being the one who cares about What's True" feels more virtuous. As I mentioned earlier, this helps explain why among the most common refrains in social media is to call the other side a liar (rather than simply mistaken). It "feels good" to diagnose ourselves as living up to a higher standard than others.

Biases all around to watch out for.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

JP

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
2,274
Likes
2,449
Location
Brookfield, CT
It's not that hard @MattHooper. You continue to attribute things to me that I didn't say. You also are now subtly changing your argument. But hey, great to know that I'm the disingenuous one.
 

trackrat888

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2022
Messages
39
Likes
26
What is the actual argument here? This is not about truth. What I see here is:

  1. We see and understand that expensive cables, cable pucks, and other foolishness are baloney.
  2. Some people disagree with ruthlessly attacking, in the comment sections of other sites or forums, other people's beliefs on this matter.
  3. The people that advocate these attacks (or assertions?) believe that they are "just and true" in the continuation of these attacks (discussions) outside of this forum. They view it as being a purveyor of truth.
  4. Others (me included) think that one should not treat others this way. Personally, I believe a person is wrong to badger people this way.
  5. These "strawman" accusations are themselves a fallacy, because the person that accuses another of floating a strawman are themselves flawed because they cannot put down the "bludgeon of truth". It is not about truth at this point, it is about being right at all costs.
  6. Then, the argument really is "I am right and you are wrong and I will either
    1. Make you so embarrassed that by digging in my heals in, or
    2. Cause the other person to stop responding or escalate until one or the other is blocked on a given forum as the ultimate resolution to the discussion.
  7. Because there is no, no, no way that you will get a cable believer to publicly state that you have turned them around.
  8. Then finally, are you the type of person that simply cannot leave this alone, like a dog clamped down on a chew toy? Are you looking for others to pat you on the head so you will release the toy? After all your education, all the work you've done in your life to build and engineer things and you've resorted to clamping down on an idea that is gospel to some and meaningless to others?

Cable fallacy is not something to die on the hill for, nor something that you should crusade for in the cruelest way possible.
 

Ornette

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
82
Likes
244
It isn't stated as an a priori axiom. It's stated as a proposition to be argued for. Which is exactly what I've been doing for why people tend to care about the truth, and why our standard biases can make it look to someone else that we don't really care about the truth. Someone with a better argument can explain to me why I'm wrong. I'm all ears.

It's a generalization, that generally speaking people do care if their beliefs are true, especially beliefs that are deeply held or a focus of lots of their attention (whether it's a religion or a much loved hobby or whatever).

There will always be exceptions, but I think they will be relatively rare.

Even chronic liars likely care about the truth of their beliefs, which is my point.

I argue that in most cases: yes they do. People really, really can believe crazy and illogical things, sincerely. Because we are not Perfectly Rational Beings - we make mistakes, and often biases hide from us those mistakes. Even when the mistakes are pointed out, there are all sorts of reasons why we may not recognize the other person is correct. That biases tend to operate in ways that can be invisible to us is something presumably well-known by folks in a "science-engineering" driven forum. And as I've said, my view also comes from decades of looking in to and interacting with people who hold what we would consider to be "crackpot" and "illogical" beliefs. I have found they are quite sincere.

For instance I have some very good friends (used to be neighbors) who are deeply in to ghosts and spirits. They are convinced we are surrounded by ghosts and convinced they see ghosts all the time. They reach these conclusions, on my account, through a faulty method of reasoning. But they are very sincere in their beliefs and act in ways incompatible with "people who don't really care their beliefs are true."
Why are you trying to convince me (or anyone) that almost everyone sincerely cares that whatever they may believe is "true"? Even if I agreed with the assertion, why on earth should I care? Some people are simply misguided, delusional, deceitful, or incapable of rational thought. It doesn't matter whether they consider their own beliefs true if they are provably false.
I think that misses what is going on here. The debate we are having is not between people who disagree about how to get to the truth. That's a different debate. The debate is between us folks here, where it is presumed for the sake of argument we agree that things like measurements and scientific controls are relevant for getting at the truth (or at least in gaining higher justification for a conclusion).

The debate is whether the people who do not share this epistemology - e.g. tweak-believing 'subjectivist' audiophiles - ought to be diagnosed as "not seeking the truth" or "not caring about the truth."

One side seems to be saying that if an audiophile has been presented with arguments and evidence for why his belief in implausible claims (e.g. bogus tweaks) is wrong, and how to correct it, and that audiophile continues to use the same method and believe the same falsehoods, it follows that audiophile does not really care about or is not seeking the truth.
OK, I think I agree with this analysis, and clearly that is the side I'm arguing. To make it more concrete, a hypothetical (but typical) example:

Amir measures the impedances and frequency responses of cable A vs. cable B, and finds them virtually identical.
Random "Subjectivist" (RS) posts that he recently compared the two cables in his "very highly resolving system", and heard "significant" audible differences.
Various ASR members (ASR) chime in to point out that existing scientific evidence indicates that RS is almost certainly imagining the differences.
RS states that the differences were "large and obvious", and that science isn't infallible and measurements can't possibly describe everything we hear.
ASR points out that expectation bias is a proven thing, and accounts for even "large" perceived differences in many cases.
RS states that it wasn't expectation bias because the results weren't what he was expecting before he did the comparison.
ASR points out that humans aren't even aware of many of their biases, and a blind test is the only reliable way to eliminate them.
RS states blind testing sounds like too much work, and repeats that the differences were OBVIOUS.
ASR says have a nice day, and enjoy your cables.

Alternate (universe) ending:

ASR points out that humans aren't even aware of many of their biases, and a double-blind test is the only reliable way to eliminate them.
Alternate RS says he hadn't realized that, and asks for instructions on conducting a legitimate blind test.
ASR complies, and says they are quite looking forward to the results, as all valid data is welcomed in any scientific field.

So, who cares about truth in these examples? Someone who is told that their perceptions/beliefs are contradicted by a large body of known science and how to test those beliefs in a controlled way, and then declines to do so? I would argue they do not. Note that while ASR may sound dogmatic to many, they are actually the open-minded party in this example. If valid contradictory data is presented, scientists are willing (in fact, obligated) to investigate causes and possibly revise current theories.
I've argued for why I think that diagnosis is incorrect. Trying to parse it, as JP did, as saying "they think they have THEIR Truth" doesn't cut it. The think they have THE TRUTH which is why many of them will react just the same as people here would if the cable-believing audiophile said to Amir "You just have YOUR truth that the cables can't really technically make a difference. That's not THE TRUTH it's just YOUR TRUTH."
The crux is that "Amir's truth" is what results from applying scientific method and conducting valid, repeatable experiments, and it's shared by millions of objectively-minded people around the globe.
That audiophile can continue to be sincerely mistaken even in the face of counter arguments/ evidence. Our minds often malfunction when seeking the truth (emphasis mine) and our mistaken beliefs are often quite recalcitrant. This should be obvious to all of us with experience dealing with other humans, let alone anyone who inhabits the typical internet forum. Further, the stubbornness of our beliefs in the face of counter argument/evidence has demonstrated over and over in research:
Correct, which is why we need objective methods and open minds if we want to make sure we stay on course.

I think you are confusing "seeking enjoyment" with "seeking truth" when it comes to Joe Sixpack audio enthusiast. In my experience, people who chase endless tweaks and exotic cables have little aptitude or interest in engineering or science, and therefore think that "everything makes a difference" and it's impossible to predict how something might sound without actually listening to it". It can be an excuse to cycle through insane amounts of gear in search of "perfect component synergy". If you want to consider such behavior "seeking truth", so be it. We can simply agree to disagree.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,278
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Surely this thread has run its course, meandering and deviating from whatever the original point actually was?

And ultimately, all that happens is a bunch of ASR members get their panties in a bunch arguing over some esoteric concept of 'truth'. They call it the silly season for a reason.
 

Ornette

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
82
Likes
244
Surely this thread has run its course, meandering and deviating from whatever the original point actually was?

And ultimately, all that happens is a bunch of ASR members get their panties in a bunch arguing over some esoteric concept of 'truth'. They call it the silly season for a reason.
Agreed. I inserted a short comment a few days ago and ended up getting sucked into the discussion. But I think I've said my piece, and will bow out. @MattHooper may have the last word. Just for the record, I wear boxers, not panties... :p
 

birdog1960

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2022
Messages
309
Likes
329
Location
Virginia
Surely this thread has run its course, meandering and deviating from whatever the original point actually was?

And ultimately, all that happens is a bunch of ASR members get their panties in a bunch arguing over some esoteric concept of 'truth'. They call it the silly season for a reason.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
It's not that hard @MattHooper. You continue to attribute things to me that I didn't say. You also are now subtly changing your argument. But hey, great to know that I'm the disingenuous one.

Predictable.

I literally quoted you. If my examination of what you've been arguing is actually incorrect and egregiously misrepresenting you, and if you were interested in honest conversation, you would explain how you've been misconstrued.

But you won't. Because we both know you can't. We both know if you clearly re-stated your argument it would be the same as you've been giving, making it obvious my characterization was correct, and that I've been directly addressing your argument. You'd apparently rather just keep sending out the impression I don't get you, rather than show how by clarifying.


Take a look at your tag line again.

It suggests we ought to do our best to understand each other's position, which would mean not only a commitment to trying to understand the other person's position, but to also commit to doing our best to be understood. I've been doing plenty of work to understand and correctly represent and address what you seem to be arguing. I'm acting in good faith. Getting you to clarify EXACTLY where you have been misconstrued, which would help identify and resolve any possible strawmanning, is like pulling teeth. Your last two posts have simply re-asserted you've been misrepresented, but not how. That is antithetical to striving for"light" in a conversation.

Why not interact in the intellectually honest manner gopnik recommends? Either that or time to retire that quote.
 
Last edited:

JSmith

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5,153
Likes
13,211
Location
Algol Perseus
1669176609090.jpeg



JSmith
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
What I see here is:

  1. We see and understand that expensive cables, cable pucks, and other foolishness are baloney.
  2. Some people disagree with ruthlessly attacking, in the comment sections of other sites or forums, other people's beliefs on this matter.
  3. The people that advocate these attacks (or assertions?) believe that they are "just and true" in the continuation of these attacks (discussions) outside of this forum. They view it as being a purveyor of truth.
  4. Others (me included) think that one should not treat others this way. Personally, I believe a person is wrong to badger people this way.

If characterized that way I agree. It's not nice to badger and attack other people.

But this begs the question of what exactly you mean by "badgering" people on other forums.

So for instance, I've been a member of various audiophile forums for many years, many of which skew more "subjectivist" (reliant on uncontrolled listening etc).
I really enjoy those forums and most of the people. But I'm not in lock-step with everyone there on everything (none of the forums are a monolith like that). If an AC cable thread or whatever starts and the discussions are whether they make differences, some have the view they do, I am skeptical and I think for good reasons. Should I just keep my mouth shut - so that only "true believer" get to have their say and the forums become one big echo chamber? If merely giving voice to the reasons I hold my skepticism makes some "subjectivist" angry...is that my fault? Should I coddle all beliefs pretending to think the same thing?

So I'm not sure at where you draw the line as to this "badgering others" in another forum. If it's based on some people's feathers being ruffled, then I'd have to have shut up just because I have a different opinion.

(BTW, whenever I express my skepticism I always point out that I'm not telling anyone else what they should buy or how, just expressing my own position).

Cable fallacy is not something to die on the hill for, nor something that you should crusade for in the cruelest way possible.

Agreed. That's why I always say "hey, I'm presenting what I think are good reasons for my skepticism, but in the end...you do you. Enjoy!"
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Why are you trying to convince me (or anyone) that almost everyone sincerely cares that whatever they may believe is "true"?
Even if I agreed with the assertion, why on earth should I care?

I'm just giving reasons for why I hold a certain position. That's what people do here all day long. It's not a one-way street; I'm happy to be shown where my position is wrong. If you don't care you don't care, so why engage? Ignore what you don't care about if you'd like.


Some people are simply misguided, delusional, deceitful, or incapable of rational thought. It doesn't matter whether they consider their own beliefs true if they are provably false.

That seems to ignore any possible consequences of everything you listed. I'd hope you care about people being deceitful. That can certainly have consequences for those they deceive, right? And even an honestly-believed, promulgated mistruth has consequences in deceiving people. It seems weird to say "who cares? Certainly you'd care when it came to an important medical intervention for your kid whether the people offering the treatment are deluded, capable of rational thought or deceitful, right? People's beliefs can have consequences for other people. Why provide information correcting *any* wrong beliefs?

Now, audio isn't emergency medicine of course. But the same principle is there: the false beliefs or deceit of some people CAN influence others to spend money on b.s. You seem to have taken the stance it doesn't matter if someone is deceived or misguided. But why assume THEY don't care at all if they are deceived or misguided? As many in this website attest, as well as in the many comments in Amir's videos, many people who were the victims of snake oil deceit, or who had been misguided in thinking they had to spend hundreds of hours waiting for their DAC to break in, or spend hundreds or thousands on high end USB cables, or any number of B.S. things...they have been GRATEFUL to discover they were wrong! It really DOES matter to many of these folks if their gadgets are doing what they claim to do, and if their money was well spent. Not all, but enough to make shining a light on all the dubious claims to be a
useful project.

This doesn't require brow-beating people in to submission. It just means making the information available...or...sometimes challenging misleading claims when they arise. You don't have to act like a White Knight to still care about helping others toward truths for which they might be grateful just as many here have been grateful.



OK, I think I agree with this analysis, and clearly that is the side I'm arguing. To make it more concrete, a hypothetical (but typical) example:

Amir measures the impedances and frequency responses of cable A vs. cable B, and finds them virtually identical.
Random "Subjectivist" (RS) posts that he recently compared the two cables in his "very highly resolving system", and heard "significant" audible differences.
Various ASR members (ASR) chime in to point out that existing scientific evidence indicates that RS is almost certainly imagining the differences.
RS states that the differences were "large and obvious", and that science isn't infallible and measurements can't possibly describe everything we hear.
ASR points out that expectation bias is a proven thing, and accounts for even "large" perceived differences in many cases.
RS states that it wasn't expectation bias because the results weren't what he was expecting before he did the comparison.
ASR points out that humans aren't even aware of many of their biases, and a blind test is the only reliable way to eliminate them.
RS states blind testing sounds like too much work, and repeats that the differences were OBVIOUS.
ASR says have a nice day, and enjoy your cables.

Alternate (universe) ending:

ASR points out that humans aren't even aware of many of their biases, and a double-blind test is the only reliable way to eliminate them.
Alternate RS says he hadn't realized that, and asks for instructions on conducting a legitimate blind test.
ASR complies, and says they are quite looking forward to the results, as all valid data is welcomed in any scientific field.

So, who cares about truth in these examples? Someone who is told that their perceptions/beliefs are contradicted by a large body of known science and how to test those beliefs in a controlled way, and then declines to do so? I would argue they do not.

I'm happy to see any argument for why they do not care about the truth.

Note that while ASR may sound dogmatic to many, they are actually the open-minded party in this example. If valid contradictory data is presented, scientists are willing (in fact, obligated) to investigate causes and possibly revise current theories.

The crux is that "Amir's truth" is what results from applying scientific method and conducting valid, repeatable experiments, and it's shared by millions of objectively-minded people around the globe.

Correct, which is why we need objective methods and open minds if we want to make sure we stay on course.

Yes, I have often written about how a purely subjectivist paradigm, by it's nature, produces a sort of dogmatic close-mindedness, whereas an "objectivist" mindset acknowledges human error and is really the more "non-dogmatic/open-minded" approach.

You may want to say "But I think they got there by NOT REALLY CARING about the truth, and THAT is why they so easily made all the mistakes on the way to their belief. So they should be diagnosed as "not caring about the truth."

But what I am arguing, is that "close-mindedness" produced by subjectivist thinking is not the same things as "not caring if one's beliefs are true." It is a very NATURAL way for us to think. Science is the UNNATURAL way to think, insofar as it continually puts our most cherished intuitions up for grabs. (Which is why it took so long to arise and develop). It's why most people do not think scientifically, do not expose their beliefs to the crucibles scientific tests require.
This is why people can so easily slip down the slope of an epistemic paradigm where they trust their perception and do not ruthlessly fact check it against all the available counter evidence or counter methodologies. It's why so many people have literally put their own lives, and the lives of those they love most, on the line for false beliefs.

So I'm saying that, usually, the "subjectivist" has slipped in to a mistaken methodology and mindset, easily greased by our natural way of thinking and biases.
It's not that they do not care if their beliefs are false or not. They care. They've just made mistakes in getting there.

I've provided links to an article citing research on why we do indeed tend to find ways of still believing falsehoods, even in the face of plenty of counter arguments and evidence. It's how we are. It's rare for people to change their mind on strong positions they hold, not the norm. Again, even observe what it's like with disagreements on a forum like this. People can go back and forth, neither budging an inch. Someone has to be wrong! But no one is budging, and each cares about what is true...this is just what human thinking looks like.

I think you are confusing "seeking enjoyment" with "seeking truth" when it comes to Joe Sixpack audio enthusiast.

Except if it were just "seeking enjoyment" without caring about the truth, the reaction would not be so reliably vitriolic whenever things like cables and similar tweaks come up in audio forums.

If the people spending big money on cables really didn't care if they made reasonable decisions to buy those cables based on the performance, they wouldn't care if someone said the performance claims were bogus. But they do care: many get in to a froth defending the "truth" of the cable claims, and argue that anyone who disagrees either doesn't have a resolving system or has inadequate sensitivity in their hearing. This is familiar to plenty of people here who have been in the audiophile forums.

In my experience, people who chase endless tweaks and exotic cables have little aptitude or interest in engineering or science, and therefore think that "everything makes a difference" and it's impossible to predict how something might sound without actually listening to it". It can be an excuse to cycle through insane amounts of gear in search of "perfect component synergy". If you want to consider such behavior "seeking truth", so be it. We can simply agree to disagree.

Yes we disagree, and of course I may be wrong, and thanks for your comment! Cheers.
 

AdamG

Proving your point makes it “Science”.
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,636
Likes
14,918
Location
Reality
Surely this thread has run its course, meandering and deviating from whatever the original point actually was?
Agreed. We can safely say that we did a postmortem on a postmortem. I don’t see this suddenly becoming productive in regards to Audio Science subject matter. Thread closed for everyone’s safety and sanity ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom