No, not ‘how to perceive’ things, but why they might perceive them in the absence of an objective cause.
Does anyone really care why we might perceive things differently?
For example, you’d probably hate the sound of my system, and vice-versa. It’s all subjective in the end.
It’s a bloody hobby for Christ’s sake, and as long as you’re personally happy with the choices you make, then it doesn’t matter a toss what somebody else thinks 
6 Likes
And things are far, far more complex than to know „objectively“. And those having experience in HiFi know obviously very little changes can make a noticeable difference. There might be „just another clock“ used, or another one has „better shielding“ etc.
1 Like
I think I remember you writing, that you approach more serious aspects in life with an objective, scientifically oriented stance.
(I apologize, if I’m confusing you with s.o. else’s statement!)
The crux of the biscuit seems, that having to switch mindsets is said to be depleting psychic resources, rendering people more likely to fail at subsequent self-regulation - see here.
I pray for all people with such varying approaches to things to be equipped with a very robust psyche, in order to be able to handle serious matters with more rationale, preserving sanity in a world that seemingly crumbles.
Have a nice and peaceful Sunday, everyone!
Apology accepted.
I don’t know how many of you have seen this. But an interesting take on the effect of millions of years of evolution on all our auditory systems of sighted tests. Its a long video and I am not authorized to post a clip. But check out the youtube from 5.26 mins to about 7:50 mins.
3 Likes
I’m not sure where to even start with that statement. Of course we should care why some people perceive things one way, while others have a different take on the same subject. Vast swathes of the social sciences are dedicated to exactly that question, because it’s of crucial importance to how the (social) world works.
Does it matter in the context of Martin Kelly’s listening room? No, not really, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s still an important topic.
Yep, and to use your phrase, I don’t give a toss what you think about your purchases. No problem there. What I do care about, as @Marin_Weigel mentioned, is that lax thinking has consequences beyond the confines of the immediate experience.
I’m not going to get into an ontological argument about the ‘ultimate’ nature of reality, but from an epistemological point of view, isn’t it the case that science is predicated on the view that we should strive to understand things objectively? Not much science would get done if we accept your premise.
2 Likes
Do you actually enjoy listening to music, or do you just pontificate about pseudo-scientific ‘theories’ that you surmise to underpin your own epistemological thinking? That’s a rhetorical question BTW…
Remember, music is an art-form, and not a scientific practice.
Just a bit of advice: Learn to just enjoy music for what it is.
3 Likes
I’ll leave that one, for the most part, because I think you’re a bit muddled about what some of the terms mean. But yes, I enjoy music, a lot. I’m currently working, so listening in my office through a pair of Kef LSX and an Arendal sub, all hooked together with standard networking gear. It sounds great. I don’t need to ‘pontificate’ about it, because it’s all standard stuff.
Indeed, but networking and the digital transference of data is not, despite what the marketing guys might have told you.
2 Likes
Hmm, I got off the upgrading merry go round that was always in search of something better. I bought a NAD with Dirac and use decent tannoy speakers. Never enjoyed it so much!
2 Likes
Far from it. I know exactly what those terms mean 
Don’t you know that our ontological perspectives are unique which, of course, makes our individual perceptions of ‘reality’ unique? We use epistemology to inform our ontology, but again our own ‘idea’ of knowledge is unique, informed by our own experiences in the world.
In other words: ‘Just because you say that it’s ‘true’, that ain’t necessarily so’! 
We have to use our own experiences in life to provide for our own ontological security.
1 Like
Ontology, to quote google, is “the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.” Your definition sounds more akin to subjectivism.
Not sure quite what you’re saying here, nor why you think it warrants a wink, but your statement has limited validity. For example, if I say it’s true that chickens can talk, it ‘ain’t necessarily so’. But if I say it’s true that vaccinated people are less likely to die of Covid-19 than those who didn’t get vaccinated, I’m on safer ground because there is objective evidence to back up my claim.
That’s an interesting way of phrasing it, why not just say opinion and be done with it? For example, I have knowledge that the world is round. You have an opinion that expensive routers sound different to cheaper ones.
1 Like
No, it’s not subjectivism. It’s existentialism. And as a philosophical school-of-thought, it’s an equally valid alternative to positivism and rationalism.
Yes, I do. An it is my belief that my switch brings benefits in my system at least.
My opinion on this is as equally valid as the opposing opinion. At the end of the day, all you can do is respect a different opinion, and ‘agree to disagree’. We’re not debating the law of thermodynamics after all
OK, I can agree with that statement, but only if, when you talk about “my system”, you include your subjective opinion as a part of that system. That gets you off the hook.
If by “this” you mean your system, see above. If you are using “this” more widely, i.e. anyone’s system, not just yours, then no, that’s not a claim you can make.
No, we’re talking about science and a range of related topics and how they pertain to the transmission of data over a network. So, I’m not going to ‘agree to disagree’, as the way in which data is transmitted over a network cannot be shaped by belief. It’s quite clearly, not a matter of opinion.
1 Like
Hahaha! There’s no ‘hook’ to get off. My opinion is valid and justified. Because it’s mine.
That’s your prerogative. But it doesn’t give your opinion any more weight than mine. Understand that. We don’t live in an epistemologically totalitarian society. Period.
Isaac Asimov put it far better that I ever could:
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
tl;dr
We’re not talking about competing opinions, we’re talking about whether opinions have the same weight as facts. They don’t. Period.
3 Likes
Hahaha! Didn’t take you long to ‘attack the person rather than the point’ did it?
I knew it was coming soon. It was inevitable.
Anyway. Reported and flagged.
Earlier, you stated the following:
I agreed that you were entitled to your opinion.
I then pointed out, using a quote from Asimov, that opinions cannot be used to challenge knowledge. So you - personal comment - are more that entitled to your opinion, but one - general comment - cannot grant opinions the same argumentative or philosophical weight as facts. I’m addressing the form of your argument.
That said, I’ve made my point so am happy to delete the sentence you find bothersome.
EDIT: By the way, ignorance isn’t a pejorative term, it just means lack of knowledge or information. If I say you’re ignorant of how to decline a verb in Swahili, it simply means you don’t know how to do it. It’s a comment on your capabilities, not your personality.
1 Like
That’s exactly what science is about. Though as history has proven science can just be as accurate as the knowledge it represents at a given point in time.
Just to believe, hey TCP/IP will guarantee packets being sent bit-perfect from sender to receiver (which absolutely works for ages perfectly in IT environment) making it impossible to have any impact on audio reproduction is a fallacy.
That’s what I was referring to things are far more complex and there is currently quite some try and error going on to see what works better.
And who knows maybe there will be sometime in the future a scientifically approved way to analyse and rate wines and other also complex areas.
1 Like
If bit perfect transfer works for every other form of data transmission then it seems odd to suggest that audio data is somehow different. I’m assuming you mean that something else is going on, so please clarify as Im not sure what you’re referring to.
I’m sure there are hundreds of ways this could be done now, but I don’t think it would make any sense to do so given that a person’s choice regarding which wine to drink is a question of taste and palette. This is a subjective call.
Data transmission isn’t affected by taste or personal opinion.
EDIT: If you’re insisting that there’s some sort of fallacy regarding the transmission of audio data, please point me at the data that corroborates your point.
2 Likes