The Audiophile Debate

[AnotherSpin]

AS you frequently conflate science and nihilism.  And your arguments seem to have been pulled from thinkers like Dostoevsky instead of anything contemporary.  Perhaps you're an old soul born in the wrong time?

I don't know what Dostoevsky's ideas were, I don't read him for many years now and I remember his texts poorly.

[71 dB]

What I mean is there are all sorts of undercurrents going on in a sometimes combative atmosphere that are apart from the matter being discussed. You however exclusively address the point in hand, saying exactly what you have observed with the wide knowledge at your disposal, which gives your posts an authority which I respect and applaud.

Well, thank you so much for these kind words! I'm not sure if I deserve all this praise, but I certainly welcome it! 

[71 dB]

I quoted Evola because right now I'm reading his book, published in 1934. Of course, he was not the only one who was skeptical about science.

This illustrates why I have always been sceptical about "book wisdow." The problem with books is they are about the opinions of their authors and should be taken as such, not word of God. Reading books is a good thing, but one should not accept everything without own critical thinking. Do you really agree with everything Evola wrote? If so why? Are you reading the book because you decided to agree with Evola regardless of what he wrote? Are you reading the book to have confirmation for your own opinions? What about those who are critical of Evola's thoughts?

[AnotherSpin]

This illustrates why I have always been sceptical about "book wisdow." The problem with books is they are about the opinions of their authors and should be taken as such, not word of God. Reading books is a good thing, but one should not accept everything without own critical thinking. Do you really agree with everything Evola wrote? If so why? Are you reading the book because you decided to agree with Evola regardless of what he wrote? Are you reading the book to have confirmation for your own opinions? What about those who are critical of Evola's thoughts?

I read Julius Evola because: a) I am an curious person and I am eager to learn; b) I am attracted to an intelligent companion, even (and especially) if his views do not coincide with the thoughtless mainstream; c) this world is pretty screwed up and is heading for the end, and Evola has something to say about the reasons why. Of course, he does not write only about science.

Is science a word of God?

[steve ridgway]

This illustrates why I have always been sceptical about "book wisdom." The problem with books is they are about the opinions of their authors and should be taken as such, not word of God. Reading books is a good thing, but one should not accept everything without own critical thinking.

I've become more wary of being led by the arguments of clever people, not being sufficiently clever or well read myself to notice the flaws in what they're saying so persuasively, and diverted from what I really want to find out.

[AnotherSpin]

I've become more wary of being led by the arguments of clever people, not being sufficiently clever or well read myself to notice the flaws in what they're saying so persuasively, and diverted from what I really want to find out.

Influence and conditioning by others is impossible to avoid. Unless you want to move to live on a desert island

[Valentino]

Ah, windup gramophones!

[71 dB]

I read Julius Evola because: a) I am an curious person and I am eager to learn; b) I am attracted to an intelligent companion, even (and especially) if his views do not coincide with the thoughtless mainstream; c) this world is pretty screwed up and is heading for the end, and Evola has something to say about the reasons why. Of course, he does not write only about science.

Yes, the World if pretty screwed up, I totally agree, but it is not because of science. It is because of greed, fear and ignorance.

Is science a word of God?

Science teaches us there is no such thing as word of God.

[AnotherSpin]

Yes, the World if pretty screwed up, I totally agree, but it is not because of science. It is because of greed, fear and ignorance.
Science teaches us there is no such thing as word of God.

1. Of course, science is not the reason, merely a tool, and a very limited one.
2. Science teaches but knows no thing for sure. God is not a thing.

[DavidW]

I've become more wary of being led by the arguments of clever people, not being sufficiently clever or well read myself to notice the flaws in what they're saying so persuasively, and diverted from what I really want to find out.

Especially public debaters because they know many tricks to weasel out of things they don't know well, they're sneaky that way.

[DavidW]

2. Science teaches but knows no thing for sure. God is not a thing.

Agreed, science teaches the hows not the whys.  That is up for philosophy and theology.  You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.

[Florestan]

Agreed, science teaches the hows not the whys.  That is up for philosophy and theology.  You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.

Indeed. There is a long list of distinguished theist scientists.

[AnotherSpin]

Agreed, science teaches the hows not the whys.  That is up for philosophy and theology.  You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.

I am not threatened by science, it provides a good tools to use in everyday life for simple tasks.

[drogulus]

Indeed. There is a long list of distinguished theist scientists.

     They are distinguished by their science. That they share some beliefs with the undistinguished macht nichts. 

     Quine said philosophy is continuous with natural science. I interpret this as meaning that the methods by which people learn about the world differ only in the degree of precision and the scope of investigation. A scientist continues to learn at the same pace as a child does, and resists the urge to retire into "beliefyness" as so many adults do.

     

[71 dB]

1. Of course, science is not the reason, merely a tool, and a very limited one.
2. Science teaches but knows no thing for sure. God is not a thing.

1. Limited in what sense and compared to what?
2. Science says our understanding can change given new evidence/information/knowledge. That doesn't mean science is clueless of things. The evidence for evolution for example is overwhelming, but small details about how evolution has happened may still be incomplete and requires further research. It is like criminal investigation. The evidence may be overhelming as for who did the crime, but how the criminal act exactly happened may never be solved.

As an atheists I don't believe in deities so God is not a thing for me, but I assumed for believers the word of God (not God) is a thing.

[AnotherSpin]

Agreed, science teaches the hows not the whys.  That is up for philosophy and theology.  You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.

Science is about quantity but not quality. It knows how many watts, ohms or decibels there are in a sound, but it knows nothing about the quality of the sound, there is no measure. That's why science doesn't distinguish the difference in sound quality of components or cables, but humans do.

[71 dB]

Science is about quantity but not quality. It knows how many watts, ohms or decibels there are in a sound, but it knows nothing about the quality of the sound, there is no measure. That's why science doesn't distinguish the difference in sound quality of components or cables, but humans do.

This is an oversimplification. For example an analyser is likely to measure harmonic distortion much more accurately than any human. On the other hand there are sonic properties we humans are much better with because technology isn't on the same level (probably is in the future).

Humans suffer from expectation/confirmation bias, placebo effect etc. Those have to be carefully removed. Science knows this.

[AnotherSpin]

This is an oversimplification. For example an analyser is likely to measure harmonic distortion much more accurately than any human. On the other hand there are sonic properties we humans are much better with because technology isn't on the same level (probably is in the future).

Humans suffer from expectation/confirmation bias, placebo effect etc. Those have to be carefully removed. Science knows this.

People suffer from biases/expectations formed by reading reviews and checking measurements. So they buy components with "correct" measurements and reviewed "well" that can't give them the quality of sound they would be satisfied with.

[steve ridgway]

Agreed, science teaches the hows not the whys.  That is up for philosophy and theology.  You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.

I think science does a fantastic job of explaining the material universe but can't deal with questions of meaning. My own experience of meaningful coincidences convinces me something more is going on, although I don't know what, I don't want to jump to any conclusions.

[Valentino]

I'm not too concerned about the "meaning of it all". Others are, and that's fine by me. But to apply it to our simple audio gear muddles things.