• 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!

A list of Audiophile Fallacies

The problem is different interpretations of what "tolerance" and/or "good manners". I am sorry, I am not open to consider and respect flat-earther or anti-vaxxer beliefs. Believers tend to ask for people to "be open" to those beliefs. Sorry. That I cannot do. Or they consider the application of Hitchen's Razor a sign of disrespect. Again, sorry, but not sorry, belief dismissed.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by tolerance. Tolerance does not of necessity include compromise or being open to other beliefs. It should, however, include not sticking one's thumb in the other guy's eye, literally or figuratively, without sufficient provocation (and appropriate lubrication). As for razors, I prefer Ockham's or Harry's, having found Hitchens as dull as he was boorish. (oops... De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est)
 
The problem is different interpretations of what "tolerance" and/or "good manners". I am sorry, I am not open to consider and respect flat-earther or anti-vaxxer beliefs. Believers tend to ask for people to "be open" to those beliefs. Sorry. That I cannot do. Or they consider the application of Hitchen's Razor a sign of disrespect. Again, sorry, but not sorry, belief dismissed.

That said, congrats on outgrowing Percy Faith. For me that was Paul Muriat. Loved it when my parents played it when I was a child. At some point, I just went.. "EWWW"

(imho, of course)
Is that an actual razor?

Ad Hitchenuim? Razorioum? Or just verecundiam? :)
 
Is that an actual razor?

Ad Hitchenuim? Razorioum? Or just verecundiam? :)

I know that Wikipedia is no proof of anything, but, it is fairy accepted generally. And is an epistemological razor, not a fallacy and much less an argument. Use it to save time.


Many serious discussions of it can be found - not sure who officially "accepts" these things, but I can say with confidence, that it is a thing! :D
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by tolerance. Tolerance does not of necessity include compromise or being open to other beliefs. It should, however, include not sticking one's thumb in the other guy's eye, literally or figuratively, without sufficient provocation (and appropriate lubrication). As for razors, I prefer Ockham's or Harry's, having found Hitchens as dull as he was boorish. (oops... De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est)

Boorishness was necessary from CH in the defense of reason - other side for the most part does the same. Especially because quite often they understand "tolerance" of their beliefs as "absence of opposition" - which it is not, as you rightly indicated. Escalation comes from the thin-skinness (if that is a proper way of saying it) that comes from internalizing, for example the belief in one's golden ears, to well, other stuff outside of audiophilia, which I won't mention, because often discussion of common sense gets labeled as "politics"... specially by that side.

Love Hitchen's razor. Not only saves time, it makes a point. Those boorish words go straight to the heart of the matter.
 
Last edited:
Ad ēligere
Audio requires a high level of exclusivity.
If you are poor, your system likely doesn't have enough resolving power, you don't count. If you listen to the wrong music (for example, songs that are not played on anachronistic instruments), you don't count.
 
Ad Electrum

Ancient people knew about this. But today you seem to forget that you buy "filthy" electrons from power company. Once they reach your outlet they ought to be purified using the right amount and quality of Au, Ag and Cu at most critical locations in the signal chain. Preferably you intercept them as early as possible by the means of fuses.
 


JSmith
 
Ideology, pride, and rhetoric can persuade people to believe in the nuttiest things.
 
Trying to use analogies as actual arguments.
You are correct in that. The mistake is assuming that the "analogist" is using analogy as argument, rather than as a tool for cajoling his opponent into finding truth on his own - an alternative to burying your opponent in tonnes of minutiae, much of which may be ultimately irrelevant. "You may lead a horse to water, but you can't make him speak Croatian."
 
You are correct in that. The mistake is assuming that the "analogist" is using the analogy argument, rather than as a tool for cajoling his opponent into finding truth on his own, rather than burying him is tonnes of minutiae, much of which may be ultimately irrelevant. "You may lead a horse to water, but you can't make him speak Croatian."
Analogies can be useful in helping someone understand something they actually don’t understand. But they don’t support an assertion. Often times audiophiles don’t accept that other audiophiles disagree with them and wrongly conclude that they just don’t understand the point. Insert analogy
 
Back on topic: Here's my contribution. Do with it as you will...

Reductio ad tauri excrementum
 
Analogies can be useful in helping someone understand something they actually don’t understand.
Or to point out that someone may be picking the wrong nit, i.e., obsessing on details not germane or not central to the question at hand.
 
Why? There is no real connection between an actual topic and an analogy. But there will be inevitable incongruities. For instance quibbling over whether a wine glass is dirty or just has strawberry jam on it. Either way it has zero direct connection to audio.
No? Lee DeForest invented a vacuum tube (the grid audion) sufficiently analogous to a physical valve, that many folk now routinely call amplifier tubes "valves," regardless of their grid configuration. Who says there's no role for analogies (like the triode) in audio? I do happily concede that "there's no crying in baseball."
 
No? Lee DeForest invented a vacuum tube (the grid audion) sufficiently analogous to a physical valve, that many folk now routinely call amplifier tubes "valves," regardless of their grid configuration. Who says there's no role for analogies (like the triode) in audio? I do happily concede that "there's no crying in baseball."
You moved the goal posts. I did say analogies can help someone understand something they don’t understand. That is their role. But they do not work and can not be used as an objective argument for something.
 
Why? There is no real connection between an actual topic and an analogy. But there will be inevitable incongruities. For instance quibbling over whether a wine glass is dirty or just has strawberry jam on it. Either way it has zero direct connection to audio.

Explained in the links.

You can’t just dismiss the use of analogy in an argument based on an assumption analogies are invalid.

Reasoning requires consistency, and consistency is found by appeal to the consistent application of accepted principles.

Analogies help identify continuity in reason: How it would be inconsistent to accept a principal in example A yet reject it in example B.

And it flushes out whether one has a reason to make that rejection or not.

Again, as explained in my links, you can’t really escape analogical reasoning .
 
Explained in the links.

You can’t just dismiss the use of analogy in an argument based on an assumption analogies are invalid.

Reasoning requires consistency, and consistency is found by appeal to the consistent application of accepted principles.

Analogies help identify continuity in reason: How it would be inconsistent to accept a principal in example A yet reject it in example B.

And it flushes out whether one has a reason to make that rejection or not.

Again, as explained in my links, you can’t really escape analogical reasoning .
It’s an unscientific folly. Legitimate arguments require evidence. Analogies are devoid of evidence. There really is no connection between dirty wine glasses and audio. When people start arguing dirty wine glass vs wine glass smeared in strawberry jam it’s a circle jerk debate. There is no actual connection to the actual topic of audio. It has zero merit.
 
Back
Top Bottom