Are you a Verificationist about audio?

Thank you Learsfool, Nonoise, and Al. It's nice to feel appreciated. :-)

Bryon

sorry about a typo, byron:

you made an assumption perhaps that the spelling of your first name was not an unintended error, and it seemed a personal affront on your part. i was writing fast and made a mistake.

i hope you can allow for the fact that i realize there is a difference between byron and bryon.

i will end my comments by referring to your comment about truth.

in no way is truth a correspondence to reality. in the empirical world truth would ensue by use of the senses. let's not go any further.

you have been very clear about your position, and given this forum, nothing more has to be said.

obviously, you may have the last word if you so desire.

i don't want to continue this philosophical discussion here i think enough has been said.

by the way didn't a famous english playwright have something to say about a name ?

05-22-12: Mrtennis
sorry about a typo, byron:

If this was meant to be funny, it is. Maybe I've underestimated you, MrPaddleball. On second thought...

you made an assumption perhaps that the spelling of your first name was not an unintended error... i was writing fast and made a mistake.

Hmm. Let me think about that. If that were true, then why is it that you always make the EXACT SAME MISTAKE? Here's a sample...

12-26-09: Mrtennis
hi byron:
my point is simple: if you enjoy a stereo system while listening to music, you won't enjoy it any more by analyzing it.

05-14-11: Mrtennis
hi byron
accuracy is not a matter of degree. something is either accurate or it is not. it is not a relative term. it is absolute.

12-25-11: Mrtennis
hi Byroncunningham:
since components are inaccurate , a stereo system is inaccurate.

12-26-11: Mrtennis
hi byron and almarg:
to effectively discuss epistemological matters would require a face to face encounter, which is infeasible.

12-27-11: Mrtennis
hi byron:
i can provide a definition of knowledge: here it is: justified true belief. justification requires proof and knowledge implies certainty.

I found those without breaking a sweat.

it seemed a personal affront on your part.

Not really. People have had trouble getting my name right since I've had the name. It's not their fault. It's a stupid spelling. It does indeed look like Byron. The vast majority of the time, I don't even correct people. I've been giving you a hard time about it because you seem DETERMINED not to learn it, even after multiple conversations with me on a number of different threads. We've even had previous conversations about you getting my name wrong! Just a few months ago, on a thread about accuracy, I said to you...

12-28-11: Bryoncunningham
You almost always call me by the incorrect name, even though I sign off nearly every post with my name. This has happened already three times on this thread, and it's happened on a number of other threads over the last two years. Admittedly, my name has an unusual spelling, and the mistake of calling me 'Byron' rather than 'Bryon' happens all the time because of it. What is different in this case is that you and I have participated in many of the same discussions on A'gon for more than two years, and we have addressed each other on more than a few occasions, and still you have not learned my name. You may find that trivial, but to me it is emblematic of a tendency to not acknowledge others, which is the essence of dogmatism.

Speaking of dogmatism...

in no way is truth a correspondence to reality. in the empirical world truth would ensue by use of the senses.

This is what is called the Method of Assertion. It goes like this...

1. Assert a statement.
2. Do not give reasons.
3. When asked for reasons, go to step 1.

The Method of Assertion is taught at the Academy of Dogmatism. I believe they've awarded you a Ph.D.. Honorary, of course.

Byron

Very, very good!

i thought that the discussion had ended.

i did not think an explanation was necessary.

however. you deserve one because you have invested time and effort and i owe you an explanation here it is.

that which accrues from senses is probably true and probably

and probably false. what can you conclude from that which has some probability of being true and false.

i hope i have provided an explanation as to why the senses are not reliable.

i believe dogmatic is not an apt descripton of my argument.

i hope this ends the discussion.

let me sum up what has transpired:

1) i am a radical skeptic

2)i am guilty of incorrectly spelling your name

3)i believe the senses are unreliable

4) the question of verification ,as it applies to audio matters is immaterial.