• 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!

Science: Are You Consistant in Your Views?

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,634
Likes
7,483
I had no idea this thread was about a private beef that had taken place here, and I have no interest in the PM-vs-thread argument.

In the spirit of the thread topic, I will say that while I strive for consistency in my views - in other words, I strive to be equally rigorous in my analysis and understanding regardless of where the facts lead - I am sure that I am not entirely consistent, because I'm a human being, and therefore flawed and liable to all sorts of influences and biases.

But I don't think "gotchas" are useful - for example, if someone writes something that is not scientifically rigorous about one topic, that doesn't invalidate everything they've written, or measured, scientifically about another topic. I would say there's nothing wrong with pointing out contradictions or inconsistencies in someone's logic or analysis - but since we all are hypocrites at one moment or another, we're all liable to being called out, and that can be abused easily.

The point, as I see it, is to try to pursue factual knowledge, and to be as rigorous as we can about separating what we think or feel on the one hand, with what can be proven or established and replicated by other people on the other hand.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Since that was a message sent to mansr, myself, and others here I can see nothing out of line with his decision to make it public? Just because a member sends words in a PM to another member is no reason to let him hide behind those words. I don't get your position on this Thomas?
No ones hiding behind any words and there’s been no deception to uncover , also non of this is relevant to the membership it’s a matter started in a non public area that should stay there and indeed was addressed by both myself and amir before this thread started. I don’t see this thread as having anything to do with the beef between you both so there absolutely no reason to then try and make it have.

You want to fight people don’t do here, we are a Audio forum . If there’s issues between members we sort them out with the relevant parties involved.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
I had no idea this thread was about a private beef that had taken place here, and I have no interest in the PM-vs-thread argument.

.

It’s not but it’s been rather unhelpfully hijacked and now there’s a mess where there was just a good example of what we want. In fact it would have serve new members to read it until just now.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
Neither I nor anyone beside the OP came here wishing to start a fight, it was a very obvious tactic by him to continue what he began at CA. I never even bothered to respond until you made your comment about the PM to mansr. This as an area we have to disagree, if someone said something to me while walking down the street, at a hi fi show, or in a PM here and I chose to repeat what was said to me, that's my choice and should not be a item subject to censor unless it is libel, in which case it becomes a legal matter.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
On the point of the OP, since most fields of science and engineering tend to be in a constant state of evolution as we expand our knowledge base and understanding it is important to retain an open mind and receptiveness to new ideas.

I am a complete ignoramus on matters audio related but as an engineer in another field I also thinks it's important to recognise that there is a wider range of interested parties and stakeholders on many technical issues than a narrow band of technical specialists. I think it's an important role of technical specialists in any field to communicate and educate when necessary. I work in the field of emissions and previously engine design (well, torsional vibration and combustion thermodynamics, an odd combination I know) and believe me I wish I had a pound for every nonsensical or just downright disingenuous statement I have heard or read from politicians or NGOs on the subject of emissions. I think I have two choices, retreat into some sort of echo chamber where I can agree with my peers that the rest of the world is a bit thick and tut about how the world is going to hell in a handcart, or engage in a debate and try to educate. I suspect the former would lend itself to an easier and probably happier life but that the latter is more useful. Which is not to say we should ignore all counter views or dismiss the thoughts of the less technically able as it is not uncommon for them to be articulate and surprisingly well considered and it is very unwise to assume that insight is limited to those with a formal education or industrial experience in a given field.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Neither I nor anyone beside the OP came here wishing to start a fight, it was a very obvious tactic by him to continue what he began at CA. I never even bothered to respond until you made your comment about the PM to mansr. This as an area we have to disagree, if someone said something to me while walking down the street, at a hi fi show, or in a PM here and I chose to repeat what was said to me, that's my choice and should not be a item subject to censor unless it is libel, in which case it becomes a legal matter.
But would you publish it in a magazine? No of course not , you would deal with whatever with the folks involved. There was no fight here unit somebody went out their way to start one . It’s also the case this is not the street , it’s a owned and managed space so yes folks will get censored , it’s not free speech no matter what people want to say and PM messages ( especially those involving management) are not to be publish in public areas unless it's in the intrest of the wider membership and that’s decided by us.

Certainly we don’t start or continue wars with them, we are here to discuss audio. That’s the same for everyone here. Iv a few messages of late asking me to censor the forum more strictly or moderate it more strictly, funny how it’s censorship when folks disagree and moderation when they want something done .

I guess that’s humans for you.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
On the point of the OP, since most fields of science and engineering tend to be in a constant state of evolution as we expand our knowledge base and understanding it is important to retain an open mind and receptiveness to new ideas.

I am a complete ignoramus on matters audio related but as an engineer in another field I also thinks it's important to recognise that there is a wider range of interested parties and stakeholders on many technical issues than a narrow band of technical specialists. I think it's an important role of technical specialists in any field to communicate and educate when necessary. I work in the field of emissions and previously engine design (well, torsional vibration and combustion thermodynamics, an odd combination I know) and believe me I wish I had a pound for every nonsensical or just downright disingenuous statement I have heard or read from politicians or NGOs on the subject of emissions. I think I have two choices, retreat into some sort of echo chamber where I can agree with my peers that the rest of the world is a bit thick and tut about how the world is going to hell in a handcart, or engage in a debate and try to educate. I suspect the former would lend itself to an easier and probably happier life but that the latter is more useful. Which is not to say we should ignore all counter views or dismiss the thoughts of the less technically able as it is not uncommon for them to be articulate and surprisingly well considered and it is very unwise to assume that insight is limited to those with a formal education or industrial experience in a given field.
It’s a hard balance and it’s one that comes down to me to manage and maintain here. I think we all do well and members generously give their time to help inform the argument in a positive and constructive way and for that I’m grateful and it’s why I bother doing this.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
I find the constant fight between extreme subjectivity and extreme objectivity very tiring to be honest, and quite unfortunate.
Extreme subjectivity has appalling consequences: a market filled with crooks and shills, fools losing money. Extreme objectivity tends to dismiss everything that can't be measured, often contemptuously.

The extreme objectivity approach suffers from a certain level of contradiction though: while it uses the placebo/buyer bias/poor methodology/lack of AB test/psychoacoustics/variation in hearing curves/etc... arguments to dismiss the subjective approach wholesale it seems to be selectively blind to the fact that music listening is essentially a subjective experience. Proving subjectivity is pervasive then dismissing it as if it had no importance in the field is a bit peculiar.

I have a few systems and, subjectively, prefer certain systems or combination of parts for certain types of music, and probably moods as well. That's totally subjective. Now, where I am objective (or at least try to be) is that I make hypotheses when it comes to the differences I hear subjectively and try to test them. Some times it is relatively easy: speaker's response curve, dispersion, tube vs AV vs D. Some times it is harder: room interaction with speaker design. Some times I just can't explain: lack of knowledge, wrong hypothesis.

Not saying my approach is the best one, that would be highly subjective ;) but the polite "hypothesis - test - adjust hypothesis" approach seems to have more merit in general than the "dismiss because guy on the Internet said so" approach.

And, in any case, never worth fighting for or attacking people...
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,211
Likes
24,170
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (from Self Reliance)
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
(No interest in whatever spat led to this thread, but given the question...)

Yes I believe I'm consistent.

I'm not trained scientifically, nor (beyond a user end knowledge) technically in electronics. But I am, at least, good at "reasoning" in the sense of thinking through arguments, the implications of propositions, noting incoherence and removing contradictions. A sort of philosophical bent-of-mind. So I've spent a long time in the skeptical trenches (over 30 years) looking in to, debating all sorts of "woo-woo," conspiracy theories, religion, alternative medicine...all the contradictory beliefs that tend to flourish outside of the rigors of the scientific method. (And though I'm not a scientist, I can give a good philosophical grounding for science, it's methods, etc - something that comes up often in debates with woo-woo practicioners who, since their claims can't hold up when playing in the science sandbox, often seek to undermine the scientific method itself by questioning the foundations of the method.)

And though I have loved hi-end audio for just as long, I simply could not ignore the obvious similarities between how the mostly subjectivist community of audiophiles and reviewers made claims and justified them, with the way pseudo-science, astrology, psychic reading and all that other stuff was justified. That just...irks me. As someone who works to be consistent in the justifications for what I believe, I can't ignore it.

So, I end up dwelling in the subjectivist forums to talk subjectivist talk (that is try to express in words what I hear and share notes with others), but end up also in places like ASR to keep my feet grounded in reality.
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,825
plenty of members who like to engage in ‘thought’ argument, logic battles
Oh them logic battles. A therefore B with a helping of C and such. Sometimes they are fun. I don't know if its abstractions or data which spark the biggest fires.
 

dshreter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
794
Likes
1,226
Within the site, and the base of knowledge in general, it seems we are lacking in objective measures for in-room system performance. I feel like objective measures for electronics and anechoic loudspeaker performance are well characterized, all bets are off when it comes to the measured performance at the listening position.

So for now, the way to setup a hifi room is largely based on guidelines that correlate to listener preference. This is grounded in psychoacoustics, but to me we are still lacking an objective framework for measurement and characterization.
 

Berwhale

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
3,933
Likes
4,922
Location
UK
Is it important to maintain some level of consistency for credibility sake?

The opposite. People trying to have 'consistent' views is what holds science back...

"A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and giving way to a new generation that is raised on it. " - Max Planck
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,211
Likes
24,170

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
The opposite. People trying to have 'consistent' views is what holds science back...

"A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and giving way to a new generation that is raised on it. " - Max Planck

Which, even accepting that exaggerated claim for argument, does not argue against consistency. The more successful theories that replace or revise older ones have a feature of being more consistent with more of what we observe (e.g. explains what were anomalies in the previous theory). Any wider attempt to build a picture of the world through the best science we have does the same.
 

Berwhale

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
3,933
Likes
4,922
Location
UK
Which, even accepting that exaggerated claim for argument, does not argue against consistency. The more successful theories that replace or revise older ones have a feature of being more consistent with more of what we observe (e.g. explains what were anomalies in the previous theory). Any wider attempt to build a picture of the world through the best science we have does the same.

The question being asked is "Are you consistant in your views?", not "Should scientific theories be consistent with reality". I think the word 'view' is open to interpretation; it could be taken to mean a subjective opinion or an objective way of looking at things. I don't think we can really answer the question without agreeing on a more narrow definition of 'views'.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
The question being asked is "Are you consistant in your views?", not "Should scientific theories be consistent with reality".

I was responding specifically to your post where you claimed that people trying to maintain consistency holds science back, in which you also supplied the Planck quote that suggests how science actually advances (which itself suffests a stubborn clinging to a view by scientists).

The way you combined the two amounted to a suggestion about science: that it is held back insofar as scientists try to cling to a consistency in their paradigm/viewpoint. No?

That's why I addressed. I suggested that it is a striving to increase consistency that tends to move science forward to new theories that account for the *inconsistencies* (anomalies) in previous paradigm/theories. If that doesn't address your claim, I don't know the point you meant to make.


I think the word 'view' is open to interpretation; it could be taken to mean a subjective opinion or an objective way of looking at things. I don't think we can really answer the question without agreeing on a more narrow definition of 'views'.

Ok, since I was reacting to your claim, could you explain what you mean by "views" and clarify the claim you were making in regard to "consistancy holding back science?"

Thanks.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,211
Likes
24,170
I should probably know better than to get involved in this discussion, but as a scientist (PhD 1986 Biology (Biochemistry), The Johns Hopkins University) I feel compelled ;) to say a couple of things.

I (still) teach a graduate level biotechnology course (essentially an analytical biochemistry course, Introduction to Glycobiology) at a university in Boston, MA. One of the things I try to instill in the students is a 21st Century perspective of what science is (and, by extension, what it isn't). I got (get) on my soapbox about this because of stuff I hear in "the media" about science (e.g., something being 'settled science', e.g. -- and I am not getting into the issues in which such verbiage crops up!). The problem, for me, is that, in 2020, folks use the word science who could, themselves, not science*;) their way out of a paper bag. :(

An open mind is absolutely essential to a good scientist -- and lots of good scientists get pretty ossified as they age, because they (we!) can so easily get hung up on the notion that we understand all there is to know about (whatever our our area of expertise). If that's true, we're all finished, nothing new to see. To date, that has yet to be the case in any discipline to which I pay any attention. :)

So, with a dollop of trepidation, I offer here two (EDIT: a few, sorry!) slides from a couple of my lectures on the topic of science.
Offered 'as-is' and FWIW. :)

1582298994364.png


1582299084467.png

1582299169835.png

That photo of Prof. Roseman (one of my mentors), sans PPE, is quite old, I'd like to point out. :)
Many of the most subtle and profound discoveries in my discipline (including the one for which I am arguably best known professionally) were made quite literally by accident -- but, as Pasteur says, only the properly prepared mind can recognize and exploit the significance of those accidents.

1582299701689.png


And, finally, to the point I an ambling around ;) This quote from one of the most recent crop of Nobel laureates caught my ear to the extent that I sought it out and shared it with my students. It crystallizes (from my way of thinking) the essence of the scientist's perspective.


1582299774829.png

As, frankly, also does that XKCD cartoon on the right :)
(I have a signed copy of this one in my hifi loft)
1582299420676.png

https://xkcd.com/242/


Hope that this digression is at least amusing and entertaining. No warranty express or implied. :)

_________________
* source:
1582300105698.png
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom