A list of Audiophile Fallacies

[Titurel]

I think we may have reached the "Inherit the Wind" denouement for this sub-thread.

 

[MAB]

I’d be CAREFUL about being quick to dismiss ANALOGICAL REASONING.

Analogies often don't work in science. So many scientific results are counter-intuitive, and defy analogy.
The Poisson spot is a great example.
Most of semiconductor physics is not explainable by analogy. Like how can an particle have negative effective mass? I guess you could argue that the effective mass construction allows scientists to calculate the motion analogous to classical laws of physics. This construction is useful in a small set of problems, and leads astray if generalized.
The Feynman Lectures are filled with examples of actual phenomena in simple systems that absolutely defy analogy, and if analogy is used the wrong answer is obtained.
The waver water cum electricity analogy is useful occasionally, but fails mostly. The AC toilet in particular.
Even simple things like the Monty Hill problem defy analogy, in fact analogies lead people to the wrong conclusion.
So no, argument by analogy is a game that can often be completely wrong, not a useful reasoning method, especially if one doesn't fully understand.
It is occasionally useful in explaining things understood, but even then often grossly oversimplifies, and causes people to assume they can use the analogy as a rule.

Also, using self-referential arguments is even less useful.

.

edit: typo

 

[Sal1950]

I posted this in another thread, but I thought it might be useful to open source some more ideas in a separate thread.

I'm here for a GOOD TIME,
Not a LONG TIME.

 

[ahofer]

I think we may have reached the "Inherit the Wind" denouement for this sub-thread.

The Reductio ad Absurdum?

 

[BelgianJoey]

Ad infinitum (related to omnia critica)
In audiophile tests it appears that testers, who already dispose of a “decent” system in audiophile terms, are able to experience non subtle improvements with every item they add to the system. New power cable? Opens the soundstage! New interconnect? Again with more defined basses, too. Other DAC? Music is more natural and a vail is lifted. Network switch? The sound is clearer but not in fatiguing way. Cable lifters? The background is darker and the soundstage opens even further. Bad vibe absorbing pebbles on the amplifier? As if the band is in the room!
Etc. Etc. Etc.
This chain of possible improvements has no end.

 

[Newman]

Analogies often don't work in science. So many scientific results are counter-intuitive, and defy analogy.
The Poisson spot is a great example.
Most of semiconductor physics is not explainable by analogy. Like how can an particle have negative effective mass? I guess you could argue that the effective mass construction allows scientists to calculate the motion analogous to classical laws of physics. This construction is useful in a small set of problems, and leads astray if generalized.
The Feynman Lectures are filled with examples of actual phenomena in simple systems that absolutely defy analogy, and if analogy is used the wrong answer is obtained.
The waver water cum electricity analogy is useful occasionally, but fails mostly. The AC toilet in particular.
Even simple things like the Monty Hill problem defy analogy, in fact analogies lead people to the wrong conclusion.
So no, argument by analogy is a game that can often be completely wrong, not a useful reasoning method, especially if one doesn't fully understand.
It is occasionally useful in explaining things understood, but even then often grossly oversimplifies, and causes people to assume they can use the analogy as a rule.

The whole issue is compounded when some people are very fond of using really poor analogies, then arguing their merits to the ends of the earth. No names, no pack drill.

 

[Newman]

Here is another audiophile fallacy that has come up in another thread: components will sound like their materials.

Metal tweeters, silver cables, copper foil paper and wax capacitors ($355 for 4.7µF), etc.

 

[ahofer]

Here is another audiophile fallacy that has come up in another thread: components will sound like their materials.

Metal tweeters, silver cables, copper foil paper and wax capacitors ($355 for 4.7µF), etc.

see above

Ad Materiae
Another subset of Ad Mysterium The materials used in electronics have their own audible quality, which transcends measurement. Amusingly, these qualities correspond directly to the tactile or visual characteristics of the material in question. Plastic waveguides sound synthetic, silver cables sound liquid, beryllium sounds hard, wood sounds warm, etc.

 

[danadam]

I'm not sure if that's covered already, but on a few occasions I read something along the lines: these two DACs/amps are build differently (not necessarily different materials but rather architecture) therefore they must sound different.

 

[MattHooper]

It’s an unscientific folly.

Try doing science without analogical reasoning.

Legitimate arguments require evidence.

Which often rely on analogical reasoning.

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.

You seem to be referring to some specific analogy someone made, and I guess I missed that particular analogy. However, your statements seem to be making broad claims against using analogy and arguments, and that’s what I’m objecting to. Certainly bad arguments can be made employing an allergies, but so can good arguments.

Would you really deny for instance, that an analogy to the effects of sighted bias in wine tasting - how simply believing one is tasting a different wine even when it is the same wine can influence perception - could have nothing of relevance to what might be happening in sighted listening to say, audiophiles comparing expensive AC cables?

 

[Chrispy]

LOL "fallacies" pretty much explains it, no?

 

[MattHooper]

Analogies often don't work in science. So many scientific results are counter-intuitive, and defy analogy.
The Poisson spot is a great example.
Most of semiconductor physics is not explainable by analogy. Like how can an particle have negative effective mass? I guess you could argue that the effective mass construction allows scientists to calculate the motion analogous to classical laws of physics. This construction is useful in a small set of problems, and leads astray if generalized.
The Feynman Lectures are filled with examples of actual phenomena in simple systems that absolutely defy analogy, and if analogy is used the wrong answer is obtained.
The waver water cum electricity analogy is useful occasionally, but fails mostly. The AC toilet in particular.
Even simple things like the Monty Hill problem defy analogy, in fact analogies lead people to the wrong conclusion.
So no, argument by analogy is a game that can often be completely wrong, not a useful reasoning method, especially if one doesn't fully understand.
It is occasionally useful in explaining things understood, but even then often grossly oversimplifies, and causes people to assume they can use the analogy as a rule.

Also, using self-referential arguments is even less useful.
View attachment 377664.

edit: typo

All forms of human reasoning - from deduction to induction to anything else - can be wrong as well. Because humans are capable of making bad arguments. The existence of bad arguments using analogies does not mean good arguments using an allergies don’t exist, anymore than some bad inductive or scientific arguments mean another such arguments are unsound.

So like any argument its going to come down to the quality of the argument, and we can’t make some broad dismissal “because it uses analogy.”

There’s nothing wrong in principle with using an analogy in an argument, so long as it is not used in an invalid way- eg as if it had deductive strength. If it’s a reasonable analogy, then it can place its place in an ampliative argument.

(this is why, as per my previous link to a paper pointed out, analogies are often used in science and science education)

 

[MattHooper]

The whole issue is compounded when some people are very fond of using really poor analogies, then arguing their merits to the ends of the earth. No names, no pack drill.

Just as bad: when some people, in a contrary mood, simply claim an argument using an analogy is poor, without being able to show it’s actually a poor argument. No names.

 

[Chrispy]

"Fallacies" just makes me think of stupid dick related stuff which isn't surprising in the sausage fest that tends to be "audiophilia"

 

[Talisman]

I like tube amps, and while I don’t drink from dirty glasses, I do like pineapple on pizza!



(and anchovies)

(And ketchup on hotdogs)

I think I'm used to it but then it hurts so much every time I read it....

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Try doing science without analogical reasoning.

Try doing it without evidence. That is what an argument by analogy does. And why it doesn’t work as an argument. An analogy does not connect to direct evidence

Would you really deny for instance, that an analogy to the effects of sighted bias in wine tasting - how simply believing one is tasting a different wine even when it is the same wine can influence perception - could have nothing of relevance to what might be happening in sighted listening to say, audiophiles comparing expensive AC cables?

That’s not an analogy. It’s sighted bias in both cases

 

[MattHooper]

---

I have a feeling that you may be thinking of analogies in a certain restrictive way, where I’m thinking of them in a broader fashion.

Again: Employing analogy can be informative and some respects and amplify or illustrate the point being made in an argument.

Try doing it without evidence.

There’s no reason that evidence can’t be adduced in an argument, employing analogy.

That is what an argument by analogy does. And why it doesn’t work as an argument. An analogy does not connect to direct evidence

That’s not an analogy. It’s sighted bias in both cases

It’s not that analogies are arguments; its that they can be informative, and can be used IN arguments.

Analogy:

• Audiophiles evaluating audio gear without controlling for bias is like wine tasters evaluating wine without controlling for bias.
• In both cases, the lack of control for bias can influence the perception of the evaluator.

One then can adduce evidence supporting claims in the analogy. So you can produce evidence of studies showing how wine tasting evaluations are skewed by expectation biases: e.g. The subject believing one wine is much more expensive than the other when in fact they are being given exactly the same wine. Yet they rate the “expensive wine” as tasting much better.

This establishes the principal that perception can be fallible; in particular it gives us evidence that our method of perception is
not some direct apprehension of truth, but is an interpretive process in which our brain can experience confounding influences and biases that lead to errors in perception.

And therefore, since the same brain is used in all perception, we have justification to be cautious about any acts of perception that have not taken that possible variable into account.

Though sighted wine tasting and sighted evaluation of audio gear are dissimilar activities, the analogy identifies the relevant characteristic they share: taking sense perception as perfectly reliable, instead of understanding perception to be interpretive and subject to distorting bias effects.

In which case just as we are right to ask the wine taster how he has ruled out the possible variable of bias effects in her perception, we are justified in asking the audiophile how he has ruled out the same possible variable in her conclusions.

The argument employing the wine analogy does not demonstrate that the audiophile’s sighted perception is an error. But it gives us reason for skepticism, and justification to ask how their method can rule out perceptual bias and error.

On a separate note: I’ve argued before, there is a level of analogical reasoning, broadly construed, baked into our very empirical reasoning. No two entities in the world are identical, so identifying patterns forces us to find similarities in entities that are otherwise dissimilar. That goes for whether you’re trying to compare the features of the water that freezes in your ice cube tray to the pond outside that freezes in the winter. Or even in the lab when you were using different samples of water each day to investigate the freezing point of water. None of your samples of water are the same from day-to-day, so what you are doing is inferring a certain similar feature between each sample of water in order to draw your inferences.

Likewise with respect to the science that establishes the unreliability of sighted listening. The relevance of that evidence will depend to some degree on some level of analogous features.

If I am going to my local hi-fi store to audition several loudspeakers that certainly is a different scenario than going to the Harman labs to engage in their sighted versus blinded listening experiments. But what matters is the analogous feature between the two scenarios! That being the feature of my evaluating the speakers under sighted conditions! This is relevantly similar to sighted conditions found to be unreliable in the blind testing studies! And identifying that similarity among the dissimilarities is what counts in justifying some caution about conclusions drawn in sighted listening conditions.

Cheers.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

There is the ad virem fallacy for amplifiers. It stipulates that even when two amplifiers are playing withput clipping, are level matched, are flat, and have no issues with distortion, input or output impedance, the more powerful amp will still sound sound better because somehow our speakers just know when they're in the arms of someone big and powerful and purr accordingly.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

---

I have a feeling that you may be thinking of analogies in a certain restrictive way, where I’m thinking of them in a broader fashion.

Quite possibly

Again: Employing analogy can be informative and some respects and amplify or illustrate the point being made in an argument.

I agree with that. Analogies can help people understand something they don’t understand. But analogies don’t support arguments.

There’s no reason that evidence can’t be adduced in an argument, employing analogy.

That’s true. But if the evidence settles the argument the analogies were immaterial

It’s not that analogies are arguments; its that they can be informative, and can be used IN arguments.

Right, they are not effective arguments. But they are often used as arguments. So much so that you find people going into deep arguments over the analogies themselves as if that actually impacted the actual issue being argued. Like wine out of a dirty glass vs wine out of a glass with strawberry jam smeared in it when debating the merits of tube amplifier colorations. The tube colorations are not connected to either analogy.

Analogy:

• Audiophiles evaluating audio gear without controlling for bias is like wine tasters evaluating wine without controlling for bias.
• In both cases, the lack of control for bias can influence the perception of the evaluator.

Again, that’s not an analogy. The subject may be different but the activity of evaluation is the same not merely analogous and bias effects is the same issue in each endeavor not an analogy. Bias effects is not an analogy for bias effects. It is bias effects.

One then can adduce evidence supporting claims in the analogy.

You don’t need the analogy. You just need the assertion and the supporting evidence

So you can produce evidence of studies showing how wine tasting evaluations are skewed by expectation biases: e.g. The subject believing one wine is much more expensive than the other when in fact they are being given exactly the same wine. Yet they rate the “expensive wine” as tasting much better.

Of course. And the thing that makes it true is the evidence.

This establishes the principal that perception can be fallible; in particular it gives us evidence that our method of perception is
not some direct apprehension of truth, but is an interpretive process in which our brain can experience confounding influences and biases that lead to errors in perception.

Yes. But again there is no analogy. There is substantial crossover but no analogy. Our perception is not analogous to our perception. It is our perception. And whether or not either taste or hearing is affected by bias lives or dies by the evidence. And only the evidence. Bias effects on taste by itself does not substantiate bias effects on hearing. So even the substantial crossover in the two acts isn’t enough for one to make a case for the other

And therefore, since the same brain is used in all perception, we have justification to be cautious about any acts of perception that have not taken that possible variable into account.

You do have reason for caution and actual direct testing due to crossover of the two acts. You do not have a valid argument via an analogy

Though sighted wine tasting and sighted evaluation of audio gear are dissimilar activities

No they are not. They are extremely similar

the analogy identifies the relevant characteristic they share: taking sense perception as perfectly reliable, instead of understanding perception to be interpretive and subject to distorting bias effects.

That’s not an analogy. What they share is the act of making a subjective evaluation of a sense based stimulus. It’s essentially the same thing.

In which case just as we are right to ask the wine taster how he has ruled out the possible variable of bias effects in her perception, we are justified in asking the audiophile how he has ruled out the same possible variable in her conclusions.

We are right to ask in both cases because in both cases separately, tests have objectively demonstrated bias effects are acting upon the preferences. Without that evidence we would have no good argument

The argument employing the wine analogy does not demonstrate that the audiophile’s sighted perception is an error.

Exactly! Which is why analogies don’t work as arguments

 

[Petrushka]

The mark of genius is often to be misunderstood, but to be misunderstood is not usually the mark of genius

Am I allowed to say, WTF?