"feelings."
I get what you mean when you use the word here. But it strikes me as a bit odd and imprecise term. "Feeling" is more commonly associated with emotion. And typically we want to distinguish between "feeling" and "reality."
So it seems odd to use a term "feeling" in conjunction with trusting something as veridical even "my feelings were verified by data."
Wouldn't it be clearer to say something like "There are those whose perception I trust?" (being verified by data). Or perhaps "whose descriptions or subjective REPORTS I trust?" Or "discernment" maybe?
I mean, if I were describing a speaker's sound, I wouldn't say "this is how I felt" or "I feel it sounds..." nor does Amir or most people talk in that manner. We talk in terms of...well...how it sounds. We are perceiving it's sound. Our perception can be more or less accurate, correlated to measurements. But I personally don't look to anyone's "feelings." We could agree on the perceived sound of a speaker, that we both are hearing the same characteristics, but you may "feel" differently about the speaker than I do in terms of your emotions, your likes or dislikes.
- Matt *sorry for being pedantic* Hooper.
No, I stick with feelings as at term. But feelings are not antithetical to reality at all. They are sometimes (not always!) poorly correlated to it, but presenting them as endpoints on a single axis is wrong.
A lack of data does not result in the wrong conclusion, it just results in an unreliable conclusion. So, the axis of feelings<-->data vectors differently than good<-->bad or accurate<-->inaccurate, and it's especially different than true<-->false.
I'd much rather use the term "impression" than "perception". Perception is a physical process, while impression is an opinion resulting from perception, or a heuristic/intuitive integration of a range of perceptions, not all of which are defined. This messes us up--we argue that perceptions are biased when what we are arguing about is really an impression that may be poorly correlated to the perception on which it is supposedly based. I am not, however, saying that perceptions can't be biased, I'm saying that when a perception is biased, it's usually simply erroneous as a result, or misleading. But an impression is orthogonal to right<-->wrong.
Your speaker example works for me as a good example: If I'm describing a speaker's sound, I might say (and have done so): This speaker really sounds
musical. That can only mean that when I listen to music played through it, I get all the emotional bennies I expect from listening to music. If that isn't about feelings, I don't know what is. We don't have to say "I feel..." for our opinion to be driven by feelings. For most people feelings are their reality, and it takes some effort of will to transcend feelings--moreso when those feelings are strong. But if I'm talking about what I
perceive from a speaker, I am limited to descriptions of what I consider to be objective characteristics. I perceive that the midrange is forward, or the bass is muffled, or the treble lacks clarity or transparency, or is harsh (warm, cold, deep-frozen, crispy-fried, even fatiguing--whatever), or that a veil was lifted. Those are fuzzy words devoid of precision (or often even meaning), but they aren't about feelings and are very much intended as
described characteristics. Perceptions are about what we think is there, even if mistaken. Feelings are about what effect that has on our emotional state, and that is a very different thing.
But I'm assuming the feelings-driven and data-driven audio enthusiasts in my dichotomy still have the same overall goal: Transcendent musical experiences that result from perfected reproduction. I'm leaving off those who buy fancy stuff as a display of wealth (or opposition thereto) or coolness, which can be a primary motivation in any camp.
Rick "Pet Ant" Denney