Are you a Verificationist about audio?

Hi Bryon,

Interesting question. In my case I would say that the answer is neither "yes" nor "no."

Assessing the validity of the kinds of statements you refer to, as I see it, is a matter of making reasoned judgments, taking into account the science that is involved, one's own listening experience and experiments, and anecdotal evidence that is offered by others.

The anecdotal evidence part of it in turn obviously requires considerable filtering, to a degree that varies depending on:

1)How broad the consensus seems to be about the particular tweak or other matter. Which is NOT to say that broadly held beliefs will always be correct.
2)Its degree of apparent absurdity.
3)The thoroughness and degree of discipline that seems to have gone into the reported assessments. Particularly the degree of care that seems to have gone into making sure that what is reported as having been heard is attributed to the right variable.

I am a verificationist to the extent that I believe that reason, common sense, scientific understanding, careful experimentation, and disciplined methodology are an essential part of achieving optimal results.

I am also a verificationist to the extent that I reject the notion some seem to have that there is no finite limit to the degree of absurdity of a tweak beyond which it is legitimate to reject the tweak without trying it.

I am a non-verificationist to the extent I believe that known science, and scientific methodology, cannot explain and verify all of our audio-related perceptions, and also to the extent that I recognize that the finite limit I referred to above is a wide one.

If that all sounds to some like a non-answer, my feeling is that like most things in life, audio involves making judgments and educated guesses involving shades of gray and matters of degree, not choices between black and white or yes and no.

Best regards,
-- Al

I'm a "verificationist" insofar as the humans making the verifications are infallible.

I will tend to take much more seriously a well reasoned explanation backed by solid science - meaning that I will accept some well supported manufacturer's claims.

When something makes absolutely no sense at all - then my philosophy is why waste any time verifying it. If it is real then very soon a proper scientific theory and experimental evidence will emerge. If it is audiphoolery then the outlandish claims (lies) will just get bigger and bigger - totally saturated in ridiculous hyperbole.

Life is too short to play the fool spending one's time testing foolish outlandish unsupported unverified anecdotal claims. Human's are very unreliable in their observations and recollections - just ask a lawyer who works in court or ask a doctor about the well known "placebo effect".

I'd rather spend that time exploring new music, investing in meaningful improvements to the system, or following other hobbies, family time etc.

subjects of a subjective nature , like audio, genereate opinions. most statements regharding audio topics are opinions which cannot be verified as to their certainty.

proff is analytic and deductive, induction cannot be used for proving anything.

the senses cannot be a basis for proof.

i would appreciate a statement which can be verified.

regarding measurement, if you have instruments measuring certain paramaters, there may be others which , at the time, cannot be measured.

hence it is my hypothesis that statements in the realm of audio can only be verified if they follow the laws of logic and mathenatics. i guess that makes me a non-verificationist because i believe in the main, that verification is not feasible.

Al wrote:

I am a non-verificationist to the extent I believe that KNOWN science, and scientific methodology, cannot explain and verify all of our audio-related perceptions…[emphasis added]

I agree that KNOWN science cannot explain all of our audio-related perceptions, but that probably does not make me, or Al, a non-verificationist, for the following reason: Most Verificationists from the history of science and philosophy believed that, for a statement to be valid, it need be verifiable only IN PRINCIPLE. That left open the possibility of valid statements whose validity could be determined only by some FUTURE science. This might be thought of as a kind of Pragmatic Verificationism, since it advocates an allegiance to scientific corroboration, while acknowledging that current science is limited in its representations of reality. Pragmatic Verificationism is what I suspect Al believes. It is certainly what I believe.

You may be wondering, why bother with Pragmatic Verificationism, or any other type of Verificationism for that matter? As Shadorne said, “Life is too short to play the fool spending one's time testing foolish outlandish unsupported unverified anecdotal claims.” Like Shadorne, I don’t want to spend my weekend testing power outlets against each other. But Verificationism is not really about the ACTIVITY of verifying (though it can be). Verificationism is about an ATTITUDE toward controversial statements - in this case, statements about audio components or systems. In my view, that attitude, or its absence, influences the way in which controversial statements are received, every day here on A’gon.