07-05-12: Bryoncunningham
But when you look at science as a whole over a long period of time, it becomes clear that, however entrenched some scientists may be, their ideas will ALWAYS be revised, elaborated, or altogether displaced by future science....
Subjectivists sometimes misrepresent Objectivists as being uniformly rigid, reductionistic, or dogmatic. No doubt there are some Objectivists who behave that way, but that behavior isn't a result of their Objectivism. It's a result of their entrenchment. And that's something that can happen to anybody, Objectivist or not.
Great points once again, Bryon, IMO.
Re the first point, I think it is worth noting that the scientific progress you refer to occurs in part as a result of experimentation in which meticulous and disciplined efforts are made to eliminate the possibility that the results may be the consequence of unrecognized extraneous variables. And the results are then further confirmed by peer review, independent experimental corroboration, etc. Early on in this thread (in my post of 6-11-12) I referred to how easy it is for extraneous variables to produce misleading results when it comes to assessing audio products and tweaks, especially when lengthy breakin periods are required for the assessments. IMO that is one reason that reports of counter-intuitive and technically inexplicable results should be questioned. In a civil as opposed to argumentative manner, of course :-) Another reason, btw, being to discuss the system dependencies that may be involved, and the likelihood that the results will be applicable to other systems.
07-05-12: Mapman
The greatest and most long lived theories will always be the ones with broad application and value.
I'm not sure that is as true in audio as it is in most other fields of endeavor.
For one thing, my perception has been that there is a tendency for those who experiment extensively with tweaks, fuses, cables, power cords, etc. to disproportionately focus their experiments on choices that are at the upper end of the price range they can afford. Their experiments will result in a choice that works well for them, and that experience will be reported. That will in turn inspire others to try out the same or similar products, with good results in many cases. The end result being that a self-reinforcing belief system evolves.
But given that the mechanisms by which many of these products provide sonic benefits are often speculative or not understood at all, at least in a way that makes sense when analyzed quantitatively, how do we know that similarly extensive experimentation focused on choices at much lower price points would not have yielded comparably good results, and better value?
Best regards,
-- Al