Digital Music Files: 16/44.1, 24/88, 24/96, 24/192 - Page 6

Yes, and Carl Sagan had some great comments about that too, no one is immune, not even a double, individual winner of the Nobel prize.
Hence the need to challenge everything. May the best stand up.

And the objective, scientific study used rather than your your closely held belief that this is so can be found where?

I'm not disagreeing. I'm simply saying prove it. Otherwise, how is your statement any more valid than the opposite statement? I believe, especially in the Internet Age, anyone can make a "statement of fact" without in fact citing any fact. If, however, you can cite a fact--no Wikipedia please!!--then you may have something.

I would think a scientist and/or objectivist would know the answer to this question immediately. When one willfully inserts a term of polarizing or discriminating significance, it modifies the discussion. Words do have meaning, and they affect the direction and tenor of discourse.

Scientist: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

Objectivists: those with a tendency to lay stress on what is external to or independent of the mind.

The terms are not interchangeable; therefore, you changed the terms of the discussion. That's his point.


BTW, you can read the studies of Edmund Sapir in linguistics, or the works of Jerry Fodor, Thomas Bever, and Merrill Garret in psycholinguistics to see the science behind my assertions.

I would have thought it was readily apparent. Do I really need to enumerate how much credence people put in things such as astrology, faith healing, divining rods, magnetic therapy, homeopathy, Shakti Stones, "frozen" CDs, green pens, CD mats, black radiation traps, nuclear vs. hydro as the source of their AC power, "magic" power cords, etc etc etc, ad nauseum? Or do you contend that belief in such things is not clear evidence of relying on that belief instead of reason?

In these kind of audio debates, I think they essentially are interchangeable. Skepticism about science is quite prevalent among audio subjectivists. I have seen many posts from them along the lines of "scientists don't know everything", "I put my trust in my ears instead of what some guy with instruments says", etc. (I remember a debate with an audio subjectivist who trotted out that popular story, which has no basis in fact, about the aerodynamic engineer who determined the bumblebee just can't fly, but he dropped that one when it turned out there's no source for the story). The prevalent attitude is always one of "my subjective perception is paramount; I really don't care about the objective reality". They will always fall back on subjective perception as the ultimate arbiter of truth (for them). So yes, they do go together with respect to the subject at hand.

..is the rallying cry of many faiths, dogmas, political agendas, demagogs, racists, sexists, radicals, reactionaries, etc. It's called begging the question in terms of the fallacies of reasoning. I'm just asking if anyone has some valid science at hand?

If someone believes in some of the things you noted, then I'd anticipate the "readily apparent to those who know" justification from them. For those who stand on the other side, it's a simple request: science, please? Otherwise, how would one differentiate your posits from theirs?

This is the assertion in question, and it's the only assertion in question, so there's no need to invoke CD mats or magic power cords:


Study please.

I understand your point, and would almost concede it, except in these kinds of discussions, when you change a term that you think is interchangeable, the person on the other side will frequently see it as NOT interchangeable. It ends up sidetracking the discussion. We all tend to get a little tight about "don't put words in my mouth" kinds of things (just ask me about my ex-wife), so changing terms degrades the conversation. Then the terminology becomes the focal point rather than the original locus of conversation.

What "science"? This is observation. Your request is akin to asking me to "prove scientifically" that there are millions of people who follow Islam, or buy rap records, or that readers of Stereophile and the Absolute Sound have bought the items I mentioned. Those facts are a given. Or do you question them?


Study of what? That people buy into such things based more on belief than reason? That's the essence of the debate in threads such as this. Rather than me searching them for you, I suggest you give your critiques of them and see if they hold up.


I understand what you're saying, but I'm rather surprised that the use of the word "objectivist" is somehow inflammatory.

I'm not sure where he's coming from. To require a study to prove humans can abandon reason would seem to me, at best an academic exercise best suited for a different forum or at worst self serving mental masturbation intended to derail the thread.

Perhaps it's a device to shift the burden of proof.

Could be. I haven't seen enough posts from Doug to get a good idea of where he's coming from either.

WOW. Just ponder designing a study to prove humans can abandon reason. It's like a Zen koan.

Well, I know it seems daunting, but the good news is you really wouldn't have to do such a study. It's been done many, many times.*

My point really just comes back to this:


now buttressed with "readily apparent."

If we seriously expect others to provide scientific proof, we simply need to know if we have it for our own statements. Or are we just making fact out of conjecture?

I like the scientific approach and use it to my benefit frequently. It helps me accomplish things that build on the science of others to achieve results that would be beyond my capability to understand without it. Even if I disagree with someone else's preference, at least I can know why I choose my preference over another's and what's at work that makes that happen.

OTOH, I am not an objectivist, and hope not to be one any time soon. Neither do I consider myself a subjectivist. So that puts a pinch on those who want to divide everything into two camps. We get that binary simplicity dumped on us from all directions these days: red or blue state, pro or anti, free enterprise or anticompetitive, saved or hell-bound, blah, blah, blah.

We often admonish others for "I just know..." kinds of statements. We ask them to put up or shut, with such tried-and-true show stoppers as the nigh impossible ABX test with ideal controls and a massive sample base and external observation by credible parties. Oh, and make that replicable, BTW.

So my message is simply if you're treading the path of science, don't throw out "I just know" "It's readily apparent" "It's obvious to all" "Anyone can see" "I don't need to prove such common knowledge" types of statements, unless you can back them up. One of the nice things about many of Arny's posts is that there are plenty of references to check to bolster (or cast doubt on) his statements. (Just kidding about the doubt thing, Arny. ) And I think most of us know that if he's asked, he can usually provide more.

Look, we all make unsupported statements all the time, and generally they're simply accepted. But those of us who ask others for proof that meets our standards must be prepared with all of our facts to meet that same standard.

I probably was taking tequila shots with some friends while watching the Jeff Beck Live at Ronnie Scott's Bluray at 90+ dB at Midnight in my little HT when I noticed this exchange. Then, if you believe in such things (and if you do, where's the study?) Satan told me to ask RobertR, who had done a credible job here:


(minus the gratuitous "subjectivists and other mystics" shot of course); anyway Beelzebub whispered to ask him for some science to back up the "enormous ability of human beings" assertion to be able to separate it from wishful thinking.

* I know no one wants to read an actual study about human behavior here, so I'll link to an easy-to-read slideshow that has all the ammo needed to make more accurate and supportable statements about why people do the things they do. In fact, if you think about some of the processes described in this thing, you can apply it to a lot to what happens in these threads.

http://www.slideshare.net/davewrona/...human-behavior

Study please. I'm asking this because you missed another category which you wouldn't have if you really looked it up.


Strawman argument. What do you want here?

I still don't know where you're coming from, Doug. Are you saying:

o Humans have NO ability to use other than reason in deciding things?

o The ability of humans to use other than reason in deciding things is very limited?

o Humans have plenty of ability to use other than reason in deciding things, but not with respect to audio?

What?


All of us? All the time? Based on what study?

I apologize for pulling this so far off thread, especially to the OP and those who have had their conversation sidetracked.

If a mod wants to move all this into another thread for continued conversation, I'm game for that, or it can all be extracted and the current thread revived as it was intended to be.

This is probably a ten minute face-to-face conversation that will take an eternity on line.

diomania, I tried to send you a PM with links to three studies, but you don't accept PMs.

The next time we have an LA meet, we can talk about it, Doug.

Best idea yet...

Why worry about it when OP already got more than he bargained for.

You brought up issues publicly. Let it be discussed publicly.

Could you guys please post a link to a study that explains what in the hell you all are talking about? Thanks

filecat13 - I think I now understand your point and if so, it is on topic for this and any other "subjectivist vs. "objectivist" thread. Using this sample exchange between the two.

S: Elevating speaker wire off the floor improves the imaging of my speakers.
O: That's impossible.

In both cases, no evidence was provided and both S and O are therefore guilty of making unsubstantiated claims. The claims are equally suspect and both can be considered "subjective".

If I had my way the above conversation would go like this:

S: Elevating speaker wire off the floor improves the imaging of my speakers.
O: Provide independent, verifiable, repeatable evidence.
No further discussion until the evidence is provided.

Of course that would make for many very short threads
What happens instead is we hear about biased, unverifiable "evidence" and invariably wives/girl friends/Pets noticing the difference. People pile on from the S and O sides, with many more claims, including unsupported ones, both from the S and O sides. Eventually people get bored, thread dies, and the battle gets reignited in another thread.

I see this same dance repeated endlessly on conspiracy theory forums.

Actually, it wouldn't end that way. The response to the O would be:

S: I don't have to do that. My ears provide all the evidence I need.
then
O: Subjective perception is not a reliable basis for determining reality. There are pitfalls which must be addressed.
S: You O guys should trust your ears. The human ear is in tune with the Cosmos, things which mere science has no knowledge of. After all, science doesn't know everything.

etc.

RobertR's take look more alike to what's been going on, at least on this forum over the years. Plus another popular response from S, you don't have a proof that it doesn't.

This is, first of all, a false equivalence. O's comment cannot be proven. It's a negative. Holding both statements to the same standard makes no sense.

Second, it fetishizes the issue of evidence. One does not need to cite specific evidence for every positive statement one makes. In fact, usually one can't do so. If I stated that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level, what evidence would I cite? It's not like anyone's ever published a journal article on the topic. I could find some kids' science books that say so, but then we get into the question of the validity of sources, since it's just an assertion by an author whose own source of information is unknown.

But no one demands that we back up a statement about the boiling point of water because it falls into the category of "general knowledge" or "generally accepted fact." But that's a squishy standard. What's 'generally known" in the local beer hall is different from what's generally known in the physics department faculty lounge.

The problem with S's statement above is that it defies known physics. (Which is what I think "That's impossible" is getting at.) Elevating wires does not have a meaningful effect on audio-frequency signals. But explaining why that is can't be done with a reference to a scientific study, because no self-respecting scientist would lower himself to studying it.

Things have become very broad. Which aspect of the discussion is giving you a headache?

My lame attempt at being funny. The topic sort of veered off track into some other areas and it just became a bit confusing. I'm good though, thanks

But you are not saying something new at all.

Does "O: Provide independent, verifiable, repeatable evidence." mean "what you are saying can be right or wrong. I am not inclined either way until I see further proof" or "what you are saying is wrong until you prove it is not". If it is the latter, then this is identical to the original postulation. If it is the former, then it is a logical fallacy due to shifting burden of proof.

How does the first formulation shift the burden of proof? The positive statement is being made by S. The burden of proof will always remain with him, until he satisfies it.

There is a fresh sample of this going on: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post21971437

Badly worded strawman, but it is up to the person actually making the claim, ie that raising conductors off the floor does actually make an audible difference. There is zero objective or measured evidence that it does, and I can see no reason why it would either, so provide something more substantive than 'I say it is so it's true'. So as an objectivist, I might say 'impossible' but that would only be from sheer frustration at the amount of unmitigated BS proposed or simply not wanting a wordy answer. Formally, 'impossible' would be, 'I have seen no evidence that it could or does make a difference. Please provide something substantive, ie not anecdote or opinion'.

My own view is that people who ask for evidence from morons are tr0lling. They don't have any evidence, and you know they don't have any evidence. Asking questions you already know the answer to, just to pick a fight, is tr0lling.

The best approach is to bait them into being even more moronic, the better to impress upon newbie lurkers the essential stupidity of the breed.