Fundamentalist Fervor


What is with the self-proclaimed "objectivist" contributors here who wrap themselves in the cloak of "science" and insist that they're faith based beliefs be accepted by all without question, challenge or doubt. I am not going to name these people here because it will likely result in this thread being deleted and that is not my intent but these "naysayers" as some here describe these people typically have no first hand experience with the matters upon which they produce they're pronouncements and proclomations and when challenged on that they recite their theory of some basic physics premise that is incomplete, improperly applied or not relevant or else they simply say it is a matter of common sense. You can identify these people easily because they have what Americans call a "trigger finger" and will rapidly label anything they don't understand as "snake oil" or "placebo-induced" or fairy dust and then demand that other's prove their claims with some test they say is easy to undertake but which they don't undertake themselves because they don't even have the product with which to experiment! They are a form of fundamentalists and my question is why do you think they are here what is their point if they don't hear differences at all?
clearthink

@clearthink I am not sure whether you are having a dig at the "product" supporters or to those who ask for more information. I would ask for as many facts on a product as possible so I could make an educated decision on that product.

It does get frustrating when "product" supporters are not forthcoming with information, even basic stuff, so you might be able to form some sort of opinion on the validity of the product, no matter if it is good or bad.

Threads will always contain polarising comments by some, but that is the spice of life, the democracy we live under.

@clearthink You might be best reading the forum's policy before having a go at me. I posted same on the tweaks threadā€¦

excerpt "You agree never to post to or use Our Website or any Public Venue for any purpose that is illegal, fraudulent, infringes the rights of others, or includes advertising, promotional material, solicitation of business, chain letters, pyramid schemes, solicitation of wagering or gambling, spamming, or that is otherwise illegal or inappropriate."

So I was not inappropriate in bringing certain affairs to light. Best you Clearthink yourself before slagging off at me, or my opinions, which so happens to be site policy.

Nothing fundamentalist about a skeptic. Skeptics simply challenge ridiculous claims that make no sense at all. When unscrupulous sellers charge 100x markups for miraculous tweaks that cannot possibly make a difference then warnings from skeptics are simply helping to prevent fraud.
shadorne
Nothing fundamentalist about a skeptic. Skeptics simply challenge ridiculous claims that make no sense at all. When unscrupulous sellers charge 100x markups for miraculous tweaks that cannot possibly make a difference then warnings from skeptics are simply helping to prevent fraud.

The very definition of a pseudo skeptic. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! šŸ„

A sceptic is only called that, by persons who have no factual backing about the subject they preach. ThoseĀ people useĀ empirical opinions as facts. Ok nothing wrong with that if the subject is ethereal, rather thanĀ of aĀ solid substance. If something is solid, then it can be factualised, rather than vocalised.

I think some poster's do not know the difference between the two, or prefer to ignore that logic, for convenience or those that are simplyĀ ignorant of this.

Now, are you calling someone who is "objectivist":

- one who practices objectivism, which is the formulation of hypothesis into fact which is able to be demonstrated repeatedly such that people can read and understand the science behind, in this case a product?

- one who objects to hypothesis on the grounds that it cannot be proved?

- one who belongs to a group who practice objectivity, i.e. one who remains apart emotionally from the "science" (for instance), such that the "science" remains emotionless - or fact - which is pretty dry..

One wonders who is actually practising "Fundamental Fervour"? It would appear your dissertation Mr C needs a bit more thought, rather than fanning out a spray of accusation.

There are people who post in these audio forums and others who think they are the only ones who can properly evaluate audio equipment. They think they are smarter than everyone else because of scientific tests, experience or just arrogance. Many just want to boast and have someone recognize their intelligence? I donā€™t think of anything as fundamentalism, just being dumb, arrogant and bullish. In fact, one or two had posted criticism of a recently deceased audio engineer, a successful businessman when the purpose of the post was a memorial. The thread was defended because we all are entitled to opinions and the classless poster stated not ā€œRIPā€ or anything positive, it was negative criticism of the products!
Also childish attacks back and forth get very old quickly. If one thinks a product is snake oil, fine state that and move on. But the bottom line is YOU dont have to buy it. Just respect the fact someone else may enjoy that tweak. If someone luvs the $10k speakers cables they have, so what? One does not have to make it a career to prove they donā€™t justify the price. The universe will not fall apart. Some people here are so obsessed with proving something does not work, instead of enjoying their audio system and allowing others to enjoy their systems.
BTW if I see someone I think is donning the Kings Crown ( writing with misplaced authority and unwanted boasting) I stop reading anything they write. Hogwash!
Having recently posted this, in response to a thread under, "Cables" and disliking typing(as much as I do), Iā€™ll just copy/paste it(so you can hate it again): "Guys, if you donā€™t hear a difference... just donā€™t spend your $$, and let everyone else make their own decisions. You donā€™t need to make your opinion into a crusade" That statement makes SO MUCH sense! So too, do scientific facts, such as the dielectric absorption of various materials, skin effect(and Litz), electromagnetic induction and how various constructions(ie: braiding) can avoid it, the chevron shape of drawn wire crystals and how single-crystal wire(ie: Ohno copper or silver) is a MEASURABLY better conductor, etc, AND(especially) how much aural acuity can vary, just like ALL the other senses. BUT, then we have the vociferous neigh-sayers and their ubiquitous LAST WORDS : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gROO7xSTxfY (how tedious!)

amg56
@clearthink You might be best reading the forum's policy before having a go at me. I posted same on the tweaks threadā€¦ Best you Clearthink yourself before slagging off at me, or my opinions, which so happens ...

You are paranoid and creepy I am not "having a go at you" and what you write here sounds very much like a threat so you would be well advised to state your opinions without targeting me.

@shadorneĀ 

Nothing fundamentalist about a skeptic. Skeptics simply challenge ridiculous claims that make no sense at all. When unscrupulous sellers charge 100x markups for miraculous tweaks that cannot possibly make a difference then warnings from skeptics are simply helping to prevent fraud.


Can you be specific which tweak is marked up 100x?


shadorne
6"Nothing fundamentalist about a skepticā€™

Not all so called "skeptics" are fundamentalists but it is obvious from this is site that many of the people who would describe themselves as skeptics are indeed fundamentalists they use a particular source and cite it as perfect infallible and authoritarian that is what a skeptic is and then they use this fervent belief and conviction to state their opinions repeatedly in this group as though they alone have access to the truth.
amg56"A sceptic is only called that, by persons who have no factual backing about the subject they preach"

So what do skeptics call themselves then God? Mr. I Know Everything There is To be Known? Ye Who Shall Not Be Questioned?Ā  And in case it is not clear to you it is these fundamentalist skeptics who are doing the preaching and proselytizing, just as you have here!
Fundamentalists are being drawn to this thread like a moth to a flame yet many do not see themselves for what they are this is very enlightening to me that they are so unaware of their behavior!
There is actually another thread here that looks at this same issue, but from a less provocative angle.

In both cases the answer is really the same: There is no shortage of those who would tell others what to do, think and believe. The best response is to think for yourself.

@clearthinkĀ I believe it was you who initiated this thread to put a few noses out of joint? So what is good for the goose and all that...

But believe me, I am not paranoid or creepy and certainly not asĀ foul mouthed as you, (regarding the end of your post to @unreceivedogma in the cables thread) hiding behind capital letters. Why not come out andĀ write it in full?

"....the best response is to think for yourself." That sounds so easy! Yet, there are so many, that take the LAZY(or, "miserly") way out:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xLm9mgJRPvmPGpo7Q/the-cognitive-science-of-rationality
amg56"I am not paranoid or creepy and certainly not as foul mouthed as you, (regarding the end of your post to @unreceivedogma in the cables thread) hiding behind capital lettersā€™

You look plenty creepy and paranoid to me and if you do not like my contributions here you are free to direct your complaint to the team of Moderators who monitor, manage and control this group it is not for you to direct me as to what I can say here.Ā You're interference here is actually helping this thread because it illustrates some of my concerns with the contributors here who bludgeon others with their religious fervor and strict fundamentalist belief systems so you can leave me alone now and by the way what grade are you in in American "grammar school"?
Anyone with an interest in audio is at liberty to spend as much money as they wish. Some may simply want maximumĀ  sound quality for their money, some may want certain features eg tone controls, equalizers, USB inputs, some may want certain aesthetics, and some might want it all.

What nobody wants is to waste money on products which have no substantiated qualities other than some sporadic accompanying spiel. This is commonly the case when it comes to cables, contact enhancers, conditioners, spikes etcĀ 

It wasn't that long ago when some enterprising individuals realised that they could make far more money simply by rebranding stock cable and taking out a few high profile ads.

Forget about years of R&D and advanced engineering, that's way too hard and way too risky an investment. This is the way to go for a fast buck. Many have followed since, and many more will follow.

Now we see all manner of such products all purporting to enhance listening pleasure, competing on the market.

The OP is basically asking why some people dare to question the claims behind these products. Perhaps he should be asking whether any of these products have actually made any difference in the history of audio other than to the bank balances of the concerned parties.

Of course it's always up to the individual to decide how they will spend their money (funny how so few tweaks are free) but it does leave a bad taste in the mouth of those who have been swindled in this manner.

So it's only fair to warn the inexperienced. I would say that if you want to try such a product then at at the least make sure that you have a decent no quibble money back guarantee. That way you can be at least a little more confident in the veracity of the vendors claims.Ā 

The old Latin phrase caveat emptor (buyer beware) is shamefully relevant in most things audio. I hope that answers the question.

Ā 


@clearthink Methinks you have had a bit too much lollywater. Anyway, enough frivolity. I have more important things to attend to. 'til next time? Nope, I don't think so either...
More to discover