Civility

[chg]

Originally Posted by wdw

Tomorrow we're ready to start again?

 

Seems so, yes. And as usual, it's that pesky group of hardcore objectivists that have crapped all over this thread again.

 

Doesn't count, I wasn't here yesterday.

[Sik_Lescinovid]

For the sake of this remark let's just call the two parties "subjectivists" and "objectivists", the choice being obvious and not meant to be taken literal. Did anyone else notice that the subjectivists much more frequently resort to name calling? It's a shame since for an objectivist this usually leads to automatic denial.

 

Anyways, I think it is clear that there will always be people who like to call BS on BS and those who like to hear everyone's opinion (the two being not necessarily disjoint). Those who like to call BS on BS should be allowed to do so on a public forum and those who get offended by it should be allowed to do so and to express their offense. This will invariably lead to situations like the thread under discussion or threads like this one. Theoretically, with the given assumptions, this seems unavoidable and the history of the internet gives enough heuristic evidence of that as well. I think people should just get used to this fact. As a concrete example one should always bear in mind that when one creates a new thread the first readers might potentially belong to the wrong target audience, such is the nature of a public forum and such was the situation in the thread under discussion. Posting an expression of great amazement with respect to a controversial product is completely welcome, but so are dismissive responses. The responsibility lies as much with the creator of a thread as it does with its readers and posters. There's no point in getting upset about all this, although even that should be fine with everyone. What shouldn't be considered acceptable though is name calling, and I've seen a lot of that in this thread.

[Julf]

Anyways, I think it is clear that there will always be people who like to call BS on BS and those who like to hear everyone's opinion (the two being not necessarily disjoint). Those who like to call BS on BS should be allowed to do so on a public forum and those who get offended by it should be allowed to do so and to express their offense. This will invariably lead to situations like the thread under discussion or threads like this one. Theoretically, with the given assumptions, this seems unavoidable and the history of the internet gives enough heuristic evidence of that as well. I think people should just get used to this fact. As a concrete example one should always bear in mind that when one creates a new thread the first readers might potentially belong to the wrong target audience, such is the nature of a public forum and such was the situation in the thread under discussion. Posting an expression of great amazement with respect to a controversial product is completely welcome, but so are dismissive responses. The responsibility lies as much with the creator of a thread as it does with its readers and posters. There's no point in getting upset about all this, although even that should be fine with everyone. What shouldn't be considered acceptable though is name calling, and I've seen a lot of that in this thread.

 

Well said.

[wgscott]

Instead of "objectivists" and "subjectivists," may I suggest we adopt the more neutral terms "skeptics" and "believers", or maybe even "rationalists" and "irrationalists"?

[wdw]

I like propeller heads and non-propeller heads

[Priaptor]

Instead of "objectivists" and "subjectivists," may I suggest we adopt the more neutral terms "skeptics" and "believers", or maybe even "rationalists" and "irrationalists"?

 

As a great American once said, "There you go again"

 

Your assumption that "subjectivity" assumes irrationality is irrational.

 

As with most things, whether it be new drugs, cars, audio, cameras, MRIs, CT scanners, etc, the "objectivity" involved in the science does not necessarily correlate with desired outcomes. Audio is no different.

 

Trust me, as a former chemist, I understand all about "objectivity", was involved in the research that brought MAO inhibitors to market and was involved more recently in helping with an AIDS vaccine all the way through phase III trials. All the data was "objectively" analyzed and it all made sense in both cases and guess what-the criteria we chose to "objectively" analyze proved to play no role in the desired outcomes and in the former, the product proved useless in the role we desired, although provided tremendous benefit elsewhere (including the opening of a whole new field of neuro-receptor research) and in the latter, the "objective" criteria, we chose as "THE" indicator proved to have no success regarding immunity.

[Julf]

I like propeller heads and non-propeller heads

 

Sure. To quote the New Hacker's Dictionary:

 

"propeller head /n./

Used by hackers, this is syn. with computer geek. Non-hackers sometimes use it to describe all techies. Prob. derives from SF fandom's tradition (originally invented by old-time fan Ray Faraday Nelson) of propeller beanies as fannish insignia (though nobody actually wears them except as a joke)."

 

I will be proud to consider myself one of the propeller heads.

[Julf]

Your assumption that "subjectivity" assumes irrationality is irrational.

 

Well, per definition and most dictionaries...

 

As an example, let's take Dictionary.com:

 

"ir·ra·tion·al·i·ty [ih-rash-uh-nal-i-tee] noun, plural ir·ra·tion·al·i·ties for 2.

1. the quality or condition of being irrational.

2. an irrational, illogical, or absurd action, thought, etc."

 

Of course you don't have to agree with the dictionary...

[wdw]

Further to Priaptor's comments below...if I am quite convinced that a recent installation of a $1000 Nordost interconnect is audibly superior to the $300 brand it replaced but the inference from some of of you is that this is akin to astrology or Ouija boards.

I work in structural engineering and recently attended a seminar given by a very gifted Prof who freely admitted that we cannot truly model the load path huge seismic forces may take as they run though a complexed connection, further stating that we must, simply, define a load path and the building will find it...a shocking and disturbingly candid statement. (and poorly paraphased)

Crude parallel but I suspect the science is just trying to keep up with these issues.

[Priaptor]

Further to Priaptor's comments below...if I am quite convinced that a recent installation of a $1000 Nordost interconnect is audibly superior to the $300 brand it replaced but the inference from some of of you is that this is akin to astrology or Ouija boards.

I work in structural engineering and recently attended a seminar given by a very gifted Prof who freely admitted that we cannot truly model the load path huge seismic forces may take as they run though a complexed connection, further stating that we must, simply, define a load path and the building will find it...a shocking and disturbingly candid statement. (and poorly paraphased)

Crude parallel but I suspect the science is just trying to keep up with these issues.

 

Why wdw, your irrational rationality sounds quite irrational, no?

[wgscott]

Further to Priaptor's comments below...if I am quite convinced that a recent installation of a $1000 Nordost interconnect is audibly superior to the $300 brand it replaced but the inference from some of of you is that this is akin to astrology or Ouija boards.

I work in structural engineering and recently attended a seminar given by a very gifted Prof who freely admitted that we cannot truly model the load path huge seismic forces may take as they run though a complexed connection, further stating that we must, simply, define a load path and the building will find it...a shocking and disturbingly candid statement. (and poorly paraphased)

Crude parallel but I suspect the science is just trying to keep up with these issues.

 

I can't speak for others, but my only point is that you don't have to invoke magical explanations or claim quantum mechanical mysticism to explain these things, and those that do (in their product advertisements) are very likely trying to hide or obscure something, or are BS'ing you.

 

Physicists can't analytically (exactly) solve equations describing three or more interacting bodies. This doesn't entail that we can't understand the trajectory of the moon orbiting the earth orbiting the sun orbiting the black hole at the center of our galaxy.

[chg]

Well said.

 

Oh geez!

[chg]

Instead of "objectivists" and "subjectivists," may I suggest we adopt the more neutral terms "skeptics" and "believers", or maybe even "rationalists" and "irrationalists"?

 

"I steer clear of anyone who describes themselves as a "skeptic." They tend to be joyless, small people who deplore what they can't understand, envy what they can't appreciate, and feel they gain status by trying to rob others of the same." John Atkinson

[wgscott]

I'll take that as an endorsement.

[wgscott]

Oh geez!

 

Not well said.

[Julf]

As an aside, I find it amusing some of our non-US brethren feel their societies are more tolerant and free thinking than the U.S. is, but apoear to have much more restricted rights of expression than ours.

 

Facts are our friends...

 

According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index 2011/2012, US is ranked #47. #1 to #8 are European countries, as are 16 of the first 25 entries.

 

Happy to see other numbers/reports supporting your view...

[chg]

are very likely trying to hide or obscure something, or are BS'ing you.

 

Why do you care though? There's BS every where we turn (not just audio). What I do is worry about myself and maybe a few family/friends around me. A while back I convinced a friend to give up that silly back pain magnet therapy BS; it only took a year of convincing. No magnets and miraculously his back has never been better.

 

The occasional BS post on a certain item I could understand for discussion purposes.

[astrotoy]

I believe that the lack of civility comes primarily from people who feel they have to have the last word.

 

Larry

[esldude]

Further to Priaptor's comments below...if I am quite convinced that a recent installation of a $1000 Nordost interconnect is audibly superior to the $300 brand it replaced but the inference from some of of you is that this is akin to astrology or Ouija boards.

I work in structural engineering and recently attended a seminar given by a very gifted Prof who freely admitted that we cannot truly model the load path huge seismic forces may take as they run though a complexed connection, further stating that we must, simply, define a load path and the building will find it...a shocking and disturbingly candid statement. (and poorly paraphased)

Crude parallel but I suspect the science is just trying to keep up with these issues.

 

So would you prefer using the astrology or Ouija board to design with instead?

[wgscott]

I don't really care what individuals say, but vendors who deliberately use deceptive advertising that invokes fraudulent justifications based on science are a different story. In that case, it becomes a matter of integrity and intellectual self-defense. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, we have an obligation to state the truth and expose lies.

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I don't really care what individuals say, but vendors who deliberately use deceptive advertising that invokes fraudulent justifications based on science are a different story. In that case, it becomes a matter of integrity and intellectual self-defense. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, we have an obligation to state the truth and expose lies.

 

FWIW, I agree. When and if we run across crazy-talk, I think we have an obligation to label it as such. You are not entitled to an opinion if that opinion is invalid or unsound -- in fact, we also have an obligation to change our opinions in the face of relevant evidence or logical contradiction. That's what logic is and what logic requires -- of everyone.

 

That said, odd choices made by marketeers doesn't entail a consequent lack of performance in the thing being (poorly) marketed, but only that the stated explanation for said performance may well be inaccurate.

 

Why marketeers say what they say is, I'm sure, very interesting. Personally, I don't care. So, pseudo-scientific techno-babble aside, the question remains whether or not said product actually performs to a high or higher level. Whether or not it can is another, unrelated, question.

[mayhem13]

"I steer clear of anyone who describes themselves as a "skeptic." They tend to be joyless, small people who deplore what they can't understand, envy what they can't appreciate, and feel they gain status by trying to rob others of the same." John Atkinson

 

Such opinionated generalizations are fantastic examples of a blatant 'Lack' of both civility and tolerance, and posted in such poor taste to be exemplified as a direct contradiction to your proposed viewpoint and participation of this thread.

 

After reading several of your contributions to this thread, I find you sir are actually stirring the pot and providing absolutely nothing towards developing an atmosphere of civility of which I believe was the intention of the thread in the first place.

 

The original thread was closed for reasons discussing the proposed performance of a particular piece of equipment. There seems to me little point in discussing those points further but instead find a way to be tolerant of different points of view.

[wdw]

Hello wgscott

It certainly must be a first when Noam Chomsky is referenced in a web-based discussion concerning high priced speaker wires... I do have a great amount of respect for that man but he's inflammatory, especially in light of the coming train wreck called this US presidential election.

Cheers,

WDW

[wgscott]

Don't worry. Hardly any American south of the Canadian border has any idea who he is.

[wdw]

Went to see Neil Postman speak a year or two before he passed away, and in between the wonderful stream of story and political observation, he admitted the superiority of Vinyl over digital, wonder if Noam has an LP12 spinning in his study?

His title "assuming ourselves to death" was memorable.