Objectivists vs. Subjectivists - Who's right?

[AdamG]

Asr practices censorship.

It's wonderful.

Only a Government can Censor information or data. Look it up. We, just like every other social media outlet, have the right to control content here. If you don’t like it I suggest you move along. We do this to preserve a respectful and civil conversation where adults can exchange thoughts, data and observations about our Shared passion for Music and Sound.

 

[audiofilet]

So, if someone wants to make a factual claim based on anecdotal evidence, they will typically get the reaction you have seen here.

Why is it so hard to separate the concept of anecdote from fact? Anecdote can lead to fact finding, but anecdote itself without further effort isn't worth much without actual evidence.

I can get a lot of folks to tell me about how Peter Popoff's magic spring water brought them untold wealth and riches and happiness. Are those factual claims?

First of all, that is a deliberate misquote, please don't do that.

Secondly, you are conflating the term fact with a scientific fact.

The definition of a fact is merely a thing or consequence that has been proven to be true - Merriam Webster

Now the standard of proof for it to be true is not necessarily scientific, it can be anecdotal as well.

Thus one can make a factual claim based on subjective observation and anecdotal evidence.

Whether this factual claim rises to the level of a scientifically sound one is a different question.

 

[BDWoody]

The definition of a fact is merely a thing or consequence that has been proven to be true - Merriam Webster

It's the proven to be true thing that's again the problem.

If it isn't proven, it isn't a fact.

Edit:
No deliberate misquote. Not sure what you feel was out of context. That's not my practice. Do you feel I'm not interacting in good faith?

 

[audiofilet]

It's the proven to be true thing that's again the problem.

If it isn't proven, it isn't a fact.

That's the point.
You are implying that it can only be proven by scientific evidence, which is incorrect. There is no exclusive standard of proof for the term fact, the evidence to prove it can be anecdotal as well.

I agree with you that a scientifically sound fact is probably superior, but I'm just trying to point out this common misconception, that a mere fact does not necessarily equal a scientific fact.

 

[spiritofjerry]

This is a funny site to spend time on if one is "not interested in the scientific study of audio"... irrespective of how much one's earbuds cost -- or how good, or bad, they might be, objectively or subjectively, quantitatively or qualitatively.

What? Please go back and reread my comment, I said I WAS interested in scientific study of audio. In American English, we refer to it as a double negative, meaning I was speaking in the affirmative.

Based on the rest of your comment, it seems like you and I have similar interests.

 

[BDWoody]

with you that a scientifically sound fact is probably superior, but I'm just trying to point out this common misconception, that a mere fact does not necessarily equal a scientific fact.

I honestly don't know what that means. So, we have fact rankings now? Some that are better facts than other facts?

I think I've reached saturation here... I'll leave you to struggle with the concepts of facts, proof, evidence, etc.

If it can't be proven with actual, repeatable evidence, it is just another unsubstantiated claim.

Fin