In Reply to: A Suggestion Why Some Observations Cannot be Scientifically Verified posted by John C. - Aussie on November 14, 2002 at 14:08:04:
"However, as with mathematical proof, the validity of an argument depends upon the initial postulates and herein lies the tank trap in audio argument. Scientifically one should only accept postulates supported by scientific method before advancing further argument. However many arguments are based upon subjective, not objective analysis."What do you mean by "postulates supported by scientific method"? In principle the scientific method is what you use to work out whether something that has been postulated is the case. The postulate has to be stated in such a way that it can, in principle, be verified but at the time when it is first stated prior to testing it always has no scientific support whatsoever. That's not a problem - it's just that the starting point always lacks support. The idea is to use scientific method to determinet whether there is any support for the postulate or not and, if there is, whether there is enough to accept the postulate as true or not.
I find the next sentence even more confusing. Analysis is analysis, but it's the data which can be subjective or objective. Also, to my mind, what you do in developing a scientific proof is to mount and defend an argument using analysis of the data. Analysis is logical and follows strict rules - it's not the sort of thing that can be subjective or objective.
In principle, all observations - ie perceptions derived from our physical senses - should be verifiable. In practice there are problems at the threshold of sensation because that's not a clearly defined line given the fact that individuals vary in their sensory abilities. Further, just as it isn't possible to define a clear cut-off point for people in general to be able to observe something or not observe it, it isn't possible to define a clear cut-off for an individual because, even after we allow for variations in external circumstances, people simply aren't at their best all the time so a particular individual will do better at some times and others and will not be able to maintain "peak performance" reliably for any given period. With a lot of care in the setup and the use of sufficient numbers of subjects or observations, or both, it is possible to improve the quality of the results and get a more accurate picture of where the threshold of perception lies, but that can only reduce the size of the "greay area". It's simply not going to be possible to eliminate it entirely, just as it isn't possible to determine accurately whether a particular individual did or did not observe something at their personal threshold of perception at a particular time or not.
On the other hand, if you mean by "observation" something that contains an element of interpretation, then we're talking about something that isn't solely derived from sensory perception. That sort of thing cannot be scientifically verified because it includes the claimant's thoughts about the perception and we can't verify those thoughts at the individual level. On the other hand we can verify whether particular groups of people tend, as a group, to hold those thoughts or preferences using the scientific method. What that does, however, is simply show that people tend to hold or not hold such a view and that they tendency to hold or not hold it is a strong or weak tendency within that group. It does not prove that the view is true or correct.
Questions that use the word "best" or "better" can often be tricky in this regard. If you ask "what is the BEST (or Better) electrical conducter?", you can answer the question scientifically by testing a range of materials which conduct electricity and finding out which conducts the most. On the other hand if you ask "which is the BEST or BETTER speaker cable" you won't be able to answer the question scientifically because, even after allowing for relevant differences in amplifier and speaker which both interact with the cable, part of the answer is tied up with whether or not a listener will like what they hear and, if there are audible differences, they may well prefer one cable over another regardless of how it measures.
So, when it comes down to "one person's snake oil being another's audio nirvana", we're talking a combination of perception and preference. It's not just that one person may hear something and the other may not, it's also a matter of what each person prefers. It may be snake oil to one because they don't hear anything or equally because they do hear it but don't like it. On the other hand, nirvana requires that you both hear it and like it an awful lot. Yes, we do need to rely on our own hearing because that is what we personally experience, but then we choose also whether we want what we hear or not based on quite comlex sets of preferences and preferences by definition are never right or wrong - they simply define what we like and dislike.
David Aiken
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Not certain what you mean - David Aiken 17:06:44 11/14/02 (26)
- Re: Not certain what you mean - Phil Tower 00:08:54 11/15/02 (6)
- Re: Not certain what you mean - jeff mai 00:56:36 11/16/02 (5)
- Re: Not certain what you mean - David Aiken 11:53:11 11/16/02 (1)
- Re: Not certain what you mean - jeff mai 20:33:42 11/16/02 (0)
- Re: Not certain what you mean - Phil Tower 06:25:14 11/16/02 (2)
- Re: Not certain what you mean - sgb 08:16:11 11/16/02 (1)
- Re: Not certain what you mean - Phil Tower 10:53:43 11/16/02 (0)
- An attempt to explain - John C. - Aussie 00:02:22 11/15/02 (16)
- Re: An attempt to explain - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 06:34:29 11/17/02 (0)
- Re: An attempt to explain - David Aiken 14:23:01 11/15/02 (0)
- Re: An attempt to explain - Tom N. 06:59:58 11/15/02 (1)
- Re: An attempt to explain - Phil Tower 08:18:13 11/15/02 (0)
- Re: An attempt to explain - Phil Tower 00:23:18 11/15/02 (11)
- Re: An attempt to explain - sgb 08:30:27 11/16/02 (1)
- Re: An attempt to explain - Phil Tower 10:00:27 11/16/02 (0)
- Re: An attempt to explain - jeff mai 01:08:03 11/16/02 (8)
- Re: An attempt to explain - Phil Tower 06:29:55 11/16/02 (7)
- Re: An attempt to explain - Monstrous Mike 08:06:10 11/18/02 (1)
- Re: An attempt to explain - Phil Tower 10:21:39 11/18/02 (0)
- No! - David Aiken 12:15:41 11/16/02 (4)
- Whoa!!! - John Escallier 18:25:18 11/14/02 (1)
- But that's a different issue… - David Aiken 23:13:36 11/14/02 (0)