Post research here that casts doubt on ASR objectivism

[Raindog123]

@Wes I fully respect your opinion on this subject. But it’s just it - your opinion. Again, most respectfully.

But as it’s not awfully relevant to this thread, maybe we can take the debate elsewhere…

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

No, accepted theories need not provide an analytical reasoning that explains causation, and can simply show an empirical correlation - but it helps

One always wants a mechanistic explanation for phenomena

Correlation isn't enough - a theory needs to explain the facts. A correlation is just a fact - "x varies with y in this situation".

 

[watchnerd]

The beautiful thing about placebo effect is that it continues to work, even when you know it is placebo. Your bi-amping does improve the sound, but only because you believe. I am sure there is some upper limit for how strong the effect actually is, but I don't even know how one could even measure it.

Amps that look cool sound better than amps that don't when I can see them.

As my gear is visible, cool looking gear sounds better than ugly gear in my system.

 

[Pdxwayne]

You are missing his point. A theory has to be so comprehensively predictive that it is accepted as a law—that’s a higher standard than “many”, and I’m not sure anything as variable as human behavior or cognitive performance could ever measure up to it.

But accepted theories must also provide an analytical reasoning that explains causation, it seems to me, not just empirical correlation.

Rick “settled science includes a lot of theories that have not been disproven despite a range of attempts” Denney

Dear Rick "who took " : p " too seriously" Denney,

: P

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

Amps that look cool sound better than amps that don't when I can see them.

As my gear is visible, cool looking gear sounds better than ugly gear in my system.

Honestly the only real reason I'd ever buy a tube amp - they look really cool.

 

[watchnerd]

So, if I buy a £5000 amp that I like the look of, read great (subjective) reviews about I shouldn't care that it performs in every meaningful measurement worse than one at £500?

And if I buy both on a no quibble return policy, I keep the £5000 one because in sighted conditions I still think it is more magical, despite the fact if my eyes were shut I probably wouldn't be able to discern any difference?

That, my friend, is how the hifi business continues to exist in its current state. A blindfold costs £ but can save £££.

I don't have any problem paying more something that looks nice.

Even if it doesn't perform any better.

It may be true that all cats look the same in the dark, but sometimes you want to have sex with the lights on.

 

[watchnerd]

The prevailing null hypothesis here at ASR can be summarized as follows (I'll edit with any suggestions):

Should we add something about the audibility, or lack thereof, of different amplifier topologies under non-redline, non-pathological conditions?

Or even something about transistor crossover distortion?

 

[watchnerd]

Honestly the only real reason I'd ever buy a tube amp - they look really cool.

Nothing wrong with that.

Half the reason I own a TT and a reel to reel is because it looks cool.

 

[watchnerd]

Oh no, we had a reality denier pass through these parts recently. It didnt go well.

Meh you don't need to go full quantum mechanics reductio ad absurdum to believe subjective reality is highly variable.

Music sober vs music on drugs.

 

[Wes]

Correlation isn't enough - a theory needs to explain the facts. A correlation is just a fact - "x varies with y in this situation".

Look up the famous London cholera case - one of the first examples of epidemiology in Victorian times.

 

[Wes]

@Wes I fully respect your opinion on this subject. But it’s just it - your opinion. Again, most respectfully.

But as it’s not awfully relevant to this thread, maybe we can take the debate elsewhere…

No, it isn't. It is the "opinion" of other working scientists also.

And I do think we should be able to define our own field.

 

[rdenney]

No, accepted theories need not provide an analytical reasoning that explains causation, and can simply show an empirical correlation - but it helps

One always wants a mechanistic explanation for phenomena

Without the analysis, however, the burden of eliminating all competing causes becomes the challenge. Correlation does not prove causation.

Rick “who has seen the consequences of that flaw any number of times” Denney

 

[dc655321]

No, accepted theories need not provide an analytical reasoning that explains causation, and can simply show an empirical correlation - but it helps

Is your field in the social sciences?

 

[rdenney]

Dear Rick "who took " : p " too seriously" Denney,

: P

Wouldn’t be the first time.

Rick “lol” Denney

 

[Longshan]

Then there is the issue of thinking you have solved everything in a field of inquiry but are wrong. My best example here is in comparative anatomy, which has been a dead field for decades. No interesting research could be conducted because everything was known. Eventually the field transmogrified* into something new (biomechanics, which introduces physics to create a realm of functional biology). You can imagine the widespread horror when, just a few years ago, a gross anatomical structure was found that had previously gone undetected (for centuries or millennia, depending on how you count) - AND in the most heavily studied animal of all, the knee of the only extant hominid species. How could THAT have happened???

There have been quite a few new discoveries in anatomy in the last 5 or so years, and these have chiefly come because of technological advances.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There have been quite a few new discoveries in anatomy in the last 5 or so years, and these have chiefly come because of technological advances.

My best anatomical discoveries occurred when I was a teenager. They were both objectively and subjectively exciting and satisfying.

 

[Wes]

Is your field in the social sciences?

No. Biophysics.

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

No. Biophysics.

Doesn't a theory still require a causal link, though? I'm not being snide, I'm actually really curious now.

Also, unrelated but we probably shouldn't be getting too down on the social sciences in this forum. Psychoacoustics happens to be one.

 

[Andrew s]

If A causes B and C there will be a correlation between A and B aswellas A and C.
However their will also be a correlation between B and C but not a direct causal one.
Regards Andrew

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

If A causes B and C there will be a correlation between A and B aswellas A and C.
However their will also be a correlation between B and C but not a direct causal one.
Regards Andrew

Yes, I understand correlation. The point is you need to demonstrate that A causes B and C, beyond just showing the correlation.