Are you a Verificationist about audio?

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.

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.... 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.

Very well put, Bryon. Thanks! That indeed characterizes much of my relevant beliefs, and provides me with greater insight into those beliefs than I was previously able to formulate.

Best regards,
-- Al

Just waiting for this thread to start heating up with Machina Dynamica references. Perhaps also links to that H-Cat thread?

Interesting discussion. But it seems like an effort to label or create a logical construct around a set of observations that are ultimately difficult to properly frame - an exercise where words and definitions ultimately fall even shorter than our attempts to build empirical tests of ethereal and very subtle (or not) sonic differences resluting (or not) from artistic and sometimes tortured implementations of different electron paths, that most members of the "public" could not, or care not to be able decipher. For an extreme example, take the construct(s): "God gave me two ears, and I hear a difference." Verify that! Or, "Professional audio reviewer's opinions on (-add your accessory of choice HERE _______) are always correct because they know more about hifi gear than the 'Public'." Neither of these statements are verifiable, but both somewhat relevant in the context of the audiophile experience related to cables and tweaks.

Speaking of reviewers, it is interesting that this topic comes up now, since there is another thread nearby on Agon asking about the most enjoyable audio magazine. This made me think about the "Lake Wobegon Effect" as it might apply to hifi reviewing - whereby all gear that is evaluated turns out to be "above average", including the power cords, cables and the tweaks of topic here. With respect to verificationism, this makes me want to take the "Ronald Reagan Approach" and to "Trust but Verify" when it comes to shopping based on reviewer advice.

PS - I was trained as a scientist but now fall more in the camp of the "subjective empiricist."