arnyk wrote: > I've long thought of myself as a reliable subjectivist. My many > critiques of measurements as being numbers for the sake of numbers > underscore that. That all said besides my ABX box collection, I also > have a pretty complete set of test gear, both electronic and acoustical. > > And I should write a thing about how to interpret the audibility of the > findings of technical tests.
I like that term very much - is it your original phrasing? I suppose my position having received some education in Natural Sciences is that one should seek to gain knowledge by the experimental process implied by the scientific method, whilst endeavouring to keep an open mind to new ideas. The latter is easier said than done, and many eminent scientists have struggled to maintain such a mindset. Devising original experiments to disprove an accepted hypothesis in favour of such new ideas also requires a degree of practical creativity that many purely theoretical scientists lack. A new idea may be regarded as effectively untestable against the conventional wisdom for quite a while before someone dreams up an experiment ingenious to distinguish the rival ideas. Sometimes a chance experimental finding may prompt further investigation which invalidates an accepted view, in which case the theoreticians may need to come up with an alternative hypothesis afterwards. After Edwin Hubble observed "red shift" through the massive telescope he constructed, the concept of an essential stable universe which had been in vogue since Newton's time was suddenly disproved. Whilst Einstein was left to rue the inclusive of his "Cosmological Constant" fudge into his Theory of General Relativity (something he later described as his "greatest mistake"), a Catholic priest called George Lamaitre extrapolated Hubble's findings backwards in time (something we were strictly instructed not to do in mathematics classes when using a regression line or curve to make predictions, btw!) & came up with his "Primeval Atom" concept, which he saw as a way of reuniting science & religion by allowing room for the existence of a Creator (of such an Atom). His idea was not taken very seriously at first, but in reality it is a clear antecedent of the now prevalent Big Bang Theory, although this has not led to a mass religious conversion of scientists. The Cosmic Background Radiation remaining from the birth of the universe was discovered accidently by the Bell guys who had no remaining explanation for it after spending a day cleaning the pigeon guano out of the giant horn detectors they were trying to use to detect weak signals of a different nature already, & sort advice on how to eliminate this "interference" from scientists who were aware that active searches for such traces of the Big Bang were in progress but without result to that date. Once it was confirmed that the residual signal was of constant amplitude irrespective of the direction the Bell detector was pointed in, the penny finally dropped. Cue two of the most unlikely Noble Physics Laureates ever! I think that since the scientific method requires that any disproving experimental result must be repeatable, as well as performable in the first place, I think the expression that you have used is a very apt description of the truly scientific approach. Art appreciation, on the other hand, is an entirely difference discipline although it has its schools of thought & its passing fashions, because ultimately nothing is really testable, & all positions taken must be subjective in nature. Popularity has never been a requirement of high culture... I suspect that I would strive to be a "reliable subjectivist" myself to the extent that my abilities permit. Dave :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
