skepticism of current science is fundamental to science itself...
Sure, but scepticism
based on what? 99% (probably 1% more than that but I’ll cut a bit of slack) of the scepticism you see on audio forums is based on the research findings being inconsistent with the reader’s
sighted listening experiences and the sighted reviewing reports from self-appointed guru reviewers.
Such scepticism means nothing, and will never tell anyone anything about sound waves coming out of audio gear. It is not a valid basis of objection. Pretending that it is valid or even scientific is an attempt to delude the audience — and perhaps even more importantly, oneself. (I saw a recent article by climate change deniers who claimed that they were being
more scientific than people who accepted the scientific consensus, because they were being more sceptical, and scepticism is a hallmark of the scientific approach — !!!??? The sheer gall!)
Scepticism of science is the playground of the expert science community, because their scepticism within their own field draws on their extensive reading and deep understanding of the field, the data, the context, the prior science. That's how
they progress
their field. But when a layman says "I'm sceptical and remember, that's good science", we know it is actually disguised denialism, a common trope drawn from the science denier's playbook. Funny how these sceptical laymen never show the slightest scepticism of any science that confirms their intuition or their sighted listening impressions, hey?
So, one needs to be careful about scepticism, too. It can be for all the wrong reasons. I can easily see through the self-serving scepticism that is such an ongoing feature of audio discussion forums. It is literally scepticism based on the inconvenience of the truth that the research has indicated.
I am sceptical about audio research. There isn’t enough unbiased money in it, and not enough money overall. From about the late 80s to early 2010s the private money that Dr Harman threw into academic non-profit audio research, like a benefactor, was wildly exceptional. With more unbiased money would come larger experiments with more expense put into experimental design, and more of them, plus, importantly, more validation experiments to validate unexpected conclusions from prior research.
But if that money was there, we still would complain. Because the stuff that ‘we’ want to see re-proven and re-validated with ‘more and better’ research, over and over and over again, are not what researchers are interested in, because to the research community those things are actually done deals but we audiophiles just can’t bring ourselves to accept the inconvenience they pose by contradicting our sighted home listening experiences. Stuff like DSD vs PCM, high-res vs standard-res, valve vs transistor, cable vs cable, which loudspeaker driver material, NFB vs non-NFB — in a nutshell, seeking confirmation of every sighted listening experience, and only believing the research if it confirms sighted impressions. If research inconveniently contradicts sighted experiences, then it is ‘flawed’ and deserves ‘healthy scepticism’. You think researchers, no matter how moneyed and independent, would want to step on that treadmill? Not a chance.
So yes, I am sceptical, but I am also rational about it, and that means two things: accepting the working conclusions from the best available research as the basis for proceeding; and, NOT entertaining doubts based on sighted listening impressions. If someone expresses ‘healthy scepticism’ of the best available research I have seen, I hope I will get an answer when I ask them for the
equal or better contradictory research that they are drawing their scepticism from. That would be most welcome, and a pleasant change.
cheers
