Are you a Verificationist about audio?

Let me share my Popperian view on this matter.

The OP states:

A statement about audio is valid ONLY IF it can be verified, and it can be verified ONLY IF there is some finite, repeatable, public procedure for determining whether it is true or false.

The issues lies not with the ability to verify but rather with how the statement is structured. The statement must be falsifiable. A statement such as "power conditioner xyz will provide a low noise floor and black background" cannot be falsified thus it cannot be debated in a meaningful way. How is low defined? My idea of low may vary considerably from yours. What is black? Black is a description of color not of sound and again it is a measure of ones perception. Who am I to argue about your perception?

The obvious way to make this statement falsifiable would be to add measurable values of noise. Then you break out all the high tech instruments and see if the statement holds up. As audiophiles we all have next our systems a lab for scientifically testing of every last wire and drop of solder!

But this statement can be framed differently and still be falsifiable while being practical for discussion. For example "power conditioner xyz provides a lower noise floor as compared brand abc" This statement can be tested by comparing the two brands and most likely conflicting results will be found. The statement is none the less falsified and must be further refined or reworked and re-tested. This process is then repeated and the statement is refined to the point where it either rejected or provides valuable and usable insight.

This example is not say that it is only by comparisons, rather that comparisons may be one of many possible means of formulating a falsifiable statement.

What does this make me? A falsifialist!

Thank you, Mapman, for resurrecting this thread. It seems especially relevant lately, with all the recent discussion about magic and fuses and magic fuses.

05-16-12: Mapman
We may all listen to the same thing but chances are the perception of each is different somehow.

I agree. Perception is variable. But as your use of the word “somehow” implies, perception is not infinitely variable. There is considerable commonality among perceptions. The reason I mention that will become obvious in a minute. But first…

05-17-12: Chayro
IMO - It's all an exercise in futility, as our opinions are based on our personal experience with the equipment under a set of conditions virtually impossible, or at least unlikely for someone else to replicate. For example, in my system, because of my speakers, my amplifier and my room, I come to the conclusion that Brand X speaker cables lack midbass fullness, that's only because of the cable's interaction with my system and room. Another person, with a different system, could find the same cables to be overly bloated in the midbass. Both results could be verified by appropriate testing equipment, as frequency response in a room is scientifically verifiable.

05-19-12: Puerto
I was going to join in this discussion until I read Chayro's comments. He hit the nail on the head. Verify results in Chayro's room and then take the same components and verify results in my room. It will never be the same.

Again, I agree. Systems are variable. And because many of the characteristics we commonly attribute to components are actually extrinsic (i.e. determined by the interaction of the component with the rest of the system), the fact that systems are variable entails that the audible characteristics of the VERY SAME COMPONENT are variable. So here’s what the Verificationist has to contend with…

1. Perception is variable.
2. Systems are variable.
3. For any component, its audible characteristics are variable.

All of these statement are true, IMO. And when taken together, they present a real challenge to Verificationism. But I don’t think they present an insuperable challenge to Verificationism, in the sense in which it was presented in the OP and subsequently discussed. In the OP, I said…

A statement about audio is valid ONLY IF it can be verified, and it can be verified ONLY IF there is some finite, repeatable, public procedure for determining whether it is true or false.

So for Verificationism to be valid, it requires a procedure, or what I’ll now call a Method of Verification. According to my definition of Verificationism, the Method of Verification must be…

1. finite
2. repeatable
3. public

And now we get to the challenges presented by Mapman, Chayro, and Puerto…

--Mapman’s challenge: The Method of Verification cannot be PUBLIC, because perception is variable.

--Chayro and Puerto’s challenge: The Method of Verification cannot be REPEATABLE, because systems and component characteristics are variable.

And if the Method of Verification isn’t public or repeatable, then it isn’t a Method of Verification at all, and thus Verificationism is invalid, futile, etc.. It’s a good argument. But I don’t think it arrives at the right conclusion. The reason is this… The Method of Verification is not carried out merely by a single person. It is carried out by a LARGE COMMUNITY OF PERSONS.

Even if I can’t reproduce your results due to differences in my perception or my system, HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE are also attempting to reproduce your results. They have their own perception and their own systems. Some of them will have perception closer to you. Some will not. Some will have systems closer to yours. Some will not. But when taken together, the results of hundreds of people acting independently will effectively FACTOR OUT the idiosyncrasies of any one person’s perception or any one person’s system.

So if the Method of Verification fails for me, it says nothing about whether it will succeed for you or someone else. And if it succeeds for enough people, then a result has been verified, even if I can’t reproduce the result with my own system and with my own ears. Just how many people is "enough people" is of course debatable. The more people you require, the more rigorous a Verificationist you are. Personally, I'm a moderate Verificationist.

In other words, Verificationism doesn’t require unanimity. It requires consensus. And consensus is often possible, for the reason I gave at the beginning of this post, namely that perception is not infinitely variable and systems are not infinitely variable. There is considerable commonality in both. That commonality is often invisible at the level of the INDIVIDUAL. Sometimes it can only be seen at the level of the GROUP. And that is the level at which a result must be verified for Verificationism to be valid.

That is one of the great benefits of sites like these. They provide a view of the Big Picture, which cannot be seen from your listening room.

IMO, IME, etc.

Bryon

Tholt,

I was referring to MrT's point of view which I simply don't share.

05-19-12: Mrtennis
byron:

you are accurate in your assessment of my skepticism.

i do repeat the argument you encapsulated so well in a syllogism, because , it has not been definitively refuted.

It's ironic to me that you are challenging someone to "definitively refute" your belief that knowledge cannot be derived from perception, since by your own admission that belief is based on another, namely that the only things that can be "definitively proved" are logical and mathematical proofs. The irony should be obvious...

If the only things that can be definitively proved are logical and mathematical proofs, then your belief that knowledge cannot be derived from perception is itself, UNPROVEN. Your skepticism fails to meet its own standards of evidence. That is funny to me.

Here is another little syllogism, which I will call the Paradox of Skepticism, courtesy of MrT...

1. The only things that can be proved are logical and mathematical proofs.

2. The belief that "The only things that can be proved are logical and mathematical proofs" is not a logical or mathematical proof.

3. The belief that "The only things that can be proved are logical and mathematical proofs" cannot be proved.

That may not be a "definitive refutation" of your Ideology of Skepticism, but it is a definitive demonstration that your skepticism is self-contradictory and facile.

Bryon (not Byron. Number of times I've reminded you: 107)

Parry, thrust, point.

Bryon, after a while, and fashion, you'll be able to do this blindfolded.

It's almost unfair.

Absolute certainty is no assurance of what is. There is an old saw in medicine that goes something like this:
"No patient is in real danger until all his doctors agree on his diagnosis."

Consensus begs to be knocked over. Whether arrived at mathematically, empirically, or through happenstance, conclusions are not entirely definitive.

Granted, there are constants in life, evidenced by math, direct observation and blind luck, that will never change. Not everything is, though.

Every now and then something pops up to challenge or mystify (depending on strength of belief and conviction) the status quo and I, for one, welcome those little inconveniences.

All the best,
Nonoise