 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Rod, although the idea may have been well intended, as always this forum will end up as an unresolvable dispute between the "subjectivist" and the "objectivist." While I have participated against the strongly held objectivists, such as Steve, I do share their desire to move forward with a measurable understanding. I could not be a social scientist without this commitment. I would love there to be a bridging of the gap, but I know too well this is not going to come, because of measurement problems and other failures to use the scientific method, by which I do NOT mean DBTs.
Follow Ups:
I was kind of hoping for a forum for the intellectually challenged. A place of idle speculation without fear of scientific contradiction.But looks like that ain't gonna be the case, what with the likes of Steve Eddy showing up, then here comes Thorsten, back by "Popular Demand".
No fun here.
Back to Inmate Central to hang with the "Piggies" and "Bagsgroove".
Not starting too damn well, I would say. First time I spot this forum and already it's in the ruts created by TAS et al. We know nothing. We know everything. It matters. It doesn't matter. There is no objectivity, so give up and dare to say anything is the credo, all others are treated like narrow-minded throwbacks to some mean old time prior to enlightenment. Does not bode well...
I wish I could write like you. But I do have a question. When did this enlightenment take place? We have more advanced technology and toys. But enlightenment, one can only hope.Enjoy Tom
While I have participated against the strongly held objectivists, such as Steve, I do share their desire to move forward with a measurable understanding.I think you've read me all wrong, Norm.
I'm not an objectivist in the sense that you seem to be portraying it here.
When it comes to listening to and enjoying music, trying new things and deciding whether I like them better or not, sharing my experiences, etc., I'm wholly subjectivist. In this realm, I don't give a rat's ass about physics, measurements, actual audibility, DBTs, etc. Here I'm of the firm belief that if it sounds good, go with it. Period.
In the subjective realm, everything is relative. We each experience things in our own way, with our own tastes and preferences. And while some of us may share the same or similar experiences, tastes and preferences, there is no particular universal truth which inherently applies to everyone. Nor is anyone's subjective experiences, tastes and preferences inherently superior or inferior to the subjective experiences, tastes and preferences of another.
Now, on objective issues, such as physics, measurement, actual audibility, DBTs, etc., I'm just as objectivist here as I am subjectivist in the subjective realm.
In the objective realm, there is no relativity (other than Einstein's) as there is in the subjective realm. There are only truths and untruths. No matters of opinion. Someting either is the way it is or it isn't. And whether it is or it isn't, it applies to all of us. Ohm's Law is Ohm's Law. It applies to you, to me, to everyone else.
So the objective realm involves getting at the truth of a matter. And over the years we've developed a systematic way of getting at the truth. A set of rules if you will. Generally speaking, the scientific method, which involves certain standards of proof before something is accepted as being the truth.
Many of the problems that arise on forums such as this (as I see it anyway) are due to those who try and switch lanes from the subjectivist realm to the objectivist realm while expecting there to be the same relativism as in the subjective realm.
Someone will make a declarative statement of fact which firmly plants that claim in the objective realm, but then they get upset because their claim is held to the same standards of proof as other objective claims.
Sorry, but that's just not how things work in the objective realm.
The way I see it, if one isn't willing to have their objective claims held to the same standard of proof as all other objective claims, then don't make any objective claims in the first place. Otherwise, expect such claims to be questioned or challenged. In fact, one should WELCOME all questioning and challenging of objective claims.
I still fail to understand why such a simple concept as this is so difficult for some to come to grips with. If more people would, these forums would be much more productive and enjoyable for all.
se
Hi,After reading Steve a bunch of times and wondering where he was
coming from...I wouldn't call it subjective/objective...it looks
more like a global/local argument.The local point of view means that a component has the potential
to make a difference to an individual. Putting a picture of your
stereo in the refrigerator might make a difference to some people.But I think instead of going from the subjective position to the
objective one, I think going from the local point of view to the
global point of view makes more sense. The global point of view
holds that a particular component makes a difference to all
individuals. This is a harder position to argue from and it seems
to me that it should also require more rigor. It would be harder
to convince the majority that putting a picture of your stereo in
the refrigerator makes any difference.One side question is does it make the same difference to all
individuals. I don't think that it can because all systems start
from a particular coloration which individuals may not be aware
of.My 2 cents
Hi Folks,Been a long time and I promise not to repeat offend....
> In the subjective realm, everything is relative.
Yup.
> Now, on objective issues, such as physics, measurement, actual
> audibility, DBTs, etc., I'm just as objectivist here as I am
> subjectivist in the subjective realm.You mean THERE IS SUCH A THING as objectivity? Have you yet applied for the Nobel prize in Philosophy and have you (posthumously) informed (among others) Bishop Berkley, David Hume and Emmanuel Kant of your findings?
COME ON, for at least 300 Years we have had sufficient evidence which has yet to be disproven that the very concept of objectivity and objective observation is an oxymoron. Any observation (never mind interpretation) remains subjective, unless you admit the existence of reals supra-sensual and of higher order and you claim having ready access to these realms, from which you may with a reasonable degree of objectivity may observe subjective reality.
> In the objective realm,
Pigs fly, together with already plucked, coated in KFC crumbs and already fried fowls, straight into your mouth too. Or at least they may very well do so, for all we know about the "objective realm".
Certainly and with all due respect to you Steve, you have not even had the slightest sniff of OBJECTIVE REALITY. You merely insist upon that you particular brand of delusion is absolutely true, which is absolutely loblocks, as they on planet anagramia.
> There are only truths and untruths. No matters of opinion.
> Someting either is the way it is or it isn't.Damn it. You finally have found Kant's "thing in itself". One wonders why you failed to make the rest of us miserable philosophers aware of this.
> And whether it is or it isn't, it applies to all of us.
> Ohm's Law is Ohm's Law. It applies to you, to me, to everyone
> else.Except of course, when it don't.
> So the objective realm involves getting at the truth of a matter.
ROTFLMFAO.
OBJECTIVE, REALM, TRUTH - in one sentence.... I love it. Please, lie down before you really hurt yourself....
> And over the years we've developed a systematic way of
> getting at the truth. A set of rules if you will.You mean you developed a set of criterias by which you can distinguish your particular brand of illusion from all others. ANd a consistent one at that. Great, well done. Why have we not been told of such a major achievement?
> Generally speaking, the scientific method, which involves certain
> standards of proof before something is accepted as being the truth.You mean the methode which regulary violates Occams Razor and promotes the most preposterous theories as fact, as long as they are in agreement with the particular illusion promoted? I call that the pollitical method.
> Many of the problems that arise on forums such as this
Stem from the fact that some people are deluded enough by their ego to believe that they observe objective reality and cannot possibly agree that their position may be very relative and based on learned responses and interpretations, instead of FACT.
> Sorry, but that's just not how things work in the objective realm.
You are right. Where humans (or indeed any other non-omnicient intelligences) are involved NOTHING works in the objective realm, simply because it may or may not exist, there is no access to objective reality while relying on our subjective senses.
> The way I see it, if one isn't willing to have their objective
> claims held to the same standard of proof as all other objective
> claims,Which means I may propose anything agreeable with that particular delusion, but nothing contradicting it..
> then don't make any objective claims in the first place.
Given that there is no objectivity as such, surely there are no objective claims?
> I still fail to understand why such a simple concept as
> this is so difficult for some to come to grips with.Perhaps because it is completely, utterly and irreconcilably UNREALISTIC and SUBJECTIVE?
> If more people would, these forums would be much more
> productive and enjoyable for all.I sincerely beg to differ. If we all strated to buy the chemically pure horse excrement you have been promoting so far, ANY productivity and progressability would cease.
Please consider "Nosce te ipsum"....
L.V.X. Thorsten
I find that the musing of the great minds of the past are useful for teaching the wet behind the ears Phd candidates how to think outside the box..It serves two purposes..opens the mind to the possibilities of new paridigms....and keeps some college professors employed..
But often times I see it misapplied..
Berkley, Hume and Kant...good stuff if used correctly.
But...Toto...we're not living in flatland anymore..My digestive system doesn't split me into two separate entities (unless I eat at Taco Bell).
Cheers, John
Thorsten does this mean you not buying the big bang theory. Come on science knows how EVERYTHING WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!!I like this paragragh.
"COME ON, for at least 300 Years we have had sufficient evidence which has yet to be disproven that the very concept of objectivity and objective observation is an oxymoron. Any observation (never mind interpretation) remains subjective, unless you admit the existence of reals supra-sensual and of higher order and you claim having ready access to these realms, from which you may with a reasonable degree of objectivity may observe subjective reality"
I would say one might be able to see the rules of the game, of the lower order realm, better from the higher order realm. As far as some of the other definitions of subjective vs objective the way you portray it, regardless of which realm you are on, until you hit the end game,which is never in infinity, everything is subjective.
I will take a stab at that nobel prize. The meaning of human existence. EXPERIENCE!!! You can square it or take the square root of it but it always come out EXPERIENCE!!!
All the best subjective or objective
Tom
P.S. When the Zen Master hit the pupil with the stick is he acting out of a subjective or objective wisdom. In fact is their such a thing as subjective wisdom. I am tired of thinking it is time to put on a Tom Waits album and feel for a while.
Frater,We meet on the level.
> Thorsten does this mean you not buying the big bang theory.
Which one?
> I would say one might be able to see the rules of the game,
> of the lower order realm, better from the higher order realm.Yup.
> As far as some of the other definitions of subjective vs objective
> the way you portray it, regardless of which realm you are on, until
> you hit the end game,which is never in infinity, everything is
> subjective.The very selfsame point I was trying to make.
> I will take a stab at that nobel prize. The meaning of human
> existence. EXPERIENCE!!!A-men Frater.
I hope we part on the square.
L.V.X. Thorsten
Carl Sagan: "In the fabric of space and in the nature of matter, as in a great work of art, there is,written small, the artist's signature... there is an intelligence that antedates the universe."
OOOOwww A Saganizm! the cat died!
Ron ' <:^)
nt
Jeeeeeeeeeezuz Christ. And some say I'M pedantic? Compared to this, I'm about as pedantic as Pat Robertson is sane.My use of the word "objective" was not in its idealized, ivory tower philosophical sense but its practical applied sense.
So take your Berkley, Hume and Kant and go find some ditzy college student to impress.
se
(t) there is no access to objective reality while relying on our subjective sensesthat pretty much sums it up...
when you remove the subjective, the objective becomes worthless.
dave
Long time, no read. It's nice to see you drop in.Nemo solus satis sapit.
Cheers!
Long time, no read. It's nice to see you drop in.So this is an example of the tone you wish to estabish for Tech Square?
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/t2/messages/84.html
Man did I ever read you wrong. But I get the picture now.
se
Steve, I am entirely in agreement with nearly everything you say. I also understand why you say.
"Someone will make a declarative statement of fact which firmly plants that claim in the objective realm, but then they get upset because their claim is held to the same standards of proof as other objective claims." is where I disagree. I think there are two types of subjectivists. One is like me where we do not think the theory or measurement are sufficiently strong to explain variations in what we hear. The second type, I think, infuriates you. These are those who justify their product's differences on theoretical bases but without proof. They do not infuriate me as I view this entirely as capitalism and advertising. If their product works, I would really like to know why, and if not, I dismiss them. But I think very often that designers get a wild hair, act on it, and get an improvement. If they try to scientifically justify it, you take exception given your scientific understanding. I, however, would say that they may have something and call on improved theory and further gathering of facts. But they are in business to make money not to further scientific understanding.Perhaps the objectivist/subjectivist debate should be the "theory is strong and measurement good" group versus the "theory is not strong nor measurement good" group. I am in the second group and suspect you are in the first group. :)
HowdyThen just assume everything in this forum is subjective by your definition and we'll all be happy :)
There are things between pure subject and pure objective, e.g. brainstorming. When brainstorming, we need to hold all criticism back and let the ideas flow. They trigger new ideas in others and progress is made. At some point a more structured weeding of ideas needs to take place but doing it too early is just counter productive. Also being to pedantic about word choice or analogies often is counter productive since usually the point being made is relatively clear in spite of typos and thinkos. When the point is genuinely ambiguous a simple request for clarification usually suffices for disambiguation.
Anyway enough of my pontificating.
-Ted
I think that everything has a component of subjectivity, although some things are just much less so. Even the laws of physics as we know them come about from experiment. Experiment requires measurement, and an encounter with statistics. Once you're into statistics, then it's in the gray area. And so it's always somewhat gray. Here's a quote from "Numerical Recipes in C - The Art of Scientific Computing" by Press, Teukolsky, Vettering, and Flannery:
"The analysis of data inevitably involves some trafficking with the field of statistics, that gray area which is not quite a branch of mathematics - and just as surely not quite a branch of science. In the following sections, you will repeatedly encounter the following paradigm:* apply some formula to the data to compute 'a statistic'
* compute where the value of that statistic falls in a probability distribution that is computed on the basis of some 'null hypothesis'
* if it falls in a very unlikely spot, way out on a tail of the distribution, conclude that the null hypothesis is false for your data setIf a statistic falls in a 'reasonable' part of the distribution, you must not make the mistake of concluding that the null hypthesis is 'verified' or 'proved'. That is the curse of statistics, that it can never prove things, only disprove them! At best, you can substantiate a hypothesis by ruling out, statistically, a whole long list of competing hypothesies, every one that has ever been proposed. After a while your adversaries and competitors will give up trying to think of alternative hypotheses, or else they will grow old and die, and then your hypothesis will become accepted. Sounds crazy, we know, but that's how science works!"
Notice that there's no law that tells us how far out on a probability distribution we must go to disprove a hypothesis. It's a gray area there, too. Statistics are somewhat arbitrary in its application, and every law is based on data and a statistical argument. At best we can think of laws as "models of the physics of the universe" because they do repeatedly work for us in predictions and are accepted from measurements and this statistical argument against competing hypotheses.If all of science is purely objective then I am missing the point of that argument.
HowdyYep, I think the point often gets lost. Sometimes I think that schools should spend a little more time explaining the limits of various models that are used.
I always liked "Numerical Recipes in ... - The Art of Scientific Computing". The authors expound pragmatic and useful stuff as well as a sense of humor.
-Ted
Agreed. Ideas sometimes are just those ideas, nothing more nothing less. But it’s the source of some of the most incredible invention man has ever created.
Then just assume everything in this forum is subjective by your definition and we'll all be happy :)'Cept me. :)
There are things between pure subject and pure objective, e.g. brainstorming. When brainstorming, we need to hold all criticism back and let the ideas flow. They trigger new ideas in others and progress is made. At some point a more structured weeding of ideas needs to take place but doing it too early is just counter productive.
When has a more structured weeding of ideas ever taken place here? And I don't mean here on Tech 2 , or PropHeads, but anywhere on AA.
Personally I don't see it as counterproductive. Without weeding as you go along, you waste more time running down blind alleys and the weeding process itself triggers new ideas by getting people to think in other directions.
But even if you disagree with that, there's the practical matter to consider. Once a thread hits Next Page, most people tend to stop following it and once it hits the archives, you can't reply to or add to it at all. So there's always a race against time in terms of making as much progress as possible in any given thread.
Also being to pedantic about word choice or analogies often is counter productive since usually the point being made is relatively clear in spite of typos and thinkos.
As for word choice, and taken in light of your stated desire to make progress, how is progress made if someone uses a word which is generally understood to mean one thing but what the person using that word actually means is something quite different? Talking at cross purposes isn't something I would associate with making progress.
As for analogies, all I'm doing is expressing my seeing things a bit differently. If you wish to call that pedantic, so be it I suppose.
When the point is genuinely ambiguous a simple request for clarification usually suffices for disambiguation.
You're joking, right?
Do I need to refresh your memory as to what your response was when I made a simple request for clarification from you not too long ago? Just like Risch has done numerous times and continues to do, you accused me of intentionally playing stupid merely to perpetuate argument, which I'm sure you two used as part of your justification for banning me from Cable Asylum.
I don't think I'd need to be terribly paranoid to suspect that perhaps I'm being set up here.
"Steve, just make a simple request for clarification."
"Ok."
"See?! See?! He's just playing stupid in order to perpetuate argument! Ban 'im! Ban 'im!"
se
HowdyThere are good discussions all of the time about theoretical issues, not every post on those threads is on target, but progress gets made. I prefer the threads which don't end up as pedantic or hostile free for alls.
There is no race against time, people are free to bring things up again.
No I'm not joking: I've tried to explain my problems with your style many times both private and publicly including my previous post on this thread, I'm sorry you persist in believing I'm not being straight with you when I do. I'll not respond if your bringing it up again publicly and surely it's off topic here. Email me privately if you wish.
-Ted
Call me an optimist, I keep thinking that the gap can be productively bridged resulting in mutual understanding and respect.I will not let this forum degrade into unresolvable disputes between the "subjectivist" and the "objectivist" positions. This venue is about exploring and speculation without undue scrutiny. Perhaps a few waking hand theories can lead to some real discovery and advancement of science. If we stick to purely what's known now and supported by current science, little progress will happen and we end up with just having people choose sides in never ending circular arguments.
Prop Head will remain for those that want to disucss these issues from a more analytic viewpoint. Idle speculation and subjective thoughts will be encouraged here and could lead to the resolution of some measurement problems over time.
I don't expect it to be easy, but I'm the fool that will try to provide the environment for it to happen.
That pretty much sums up my position. But you lost me here, "I will not let this forum degrade into unresolvable disputes between the "subjectivist" and the "objectivist" positions. This venue is about exploring and speculation without undue scrutiny." Like you say, all you can do is provide an outlet, it's up to us to fill in the blanks. But how can you insure a degree of resolution without scrutiny? Is Tech Square nothing more than the equivalent of sex with a rubber?MikE
Is Tech Square nothing more than the equivalent of sex with a rubber?What, you mean you don't practice safe techs? :)
se
q
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
