Are you a Verificationist about audio?

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.

1) We are all something.

2) So sayeth the shephard, so sayeth the flock.

3) Only to a point, else we'd have incredibly short life spans.

4) Verification, being a process, will narrow down a particular. To dismiss it, see
Method of Assertion.

This was meant as humor only.
Boy, this is a hard room.
Is it getting hot in here?

All the best,
Nonoise

Wow Bryon. I am not to smart and you explained something that I could understand and appreciate. Regarding certainty and truth. Really appreciated that. It was also thoughtful, not condescending. Thanks Bryon for sharing that well thought out explanation in laymen's terms. I always appreciate your posts even though I am still confused about fuses.

If you spelledv it Brian would he call you Brain?

05-22-12: Tpreaves
If you spelledv it Brian would he call you Brain?

That I could live with. :-)

Seriously, this is probably the first time in my ENTIRE LIFE I've had a disagreement with someone about my name. Under almost any circumstances, I honestly don't care. The ONLY reason I keep bringing it up with MrT is that it is a perfect illustration of MrT's imperviousness to information outside what is already in his head. MrT identifies himself as a Skeptic, but he should identify himself as a Solipsist, because all evidence suggests that he doesn't believe that other people exist. MrT lives in a world with a population of 1.

05-22-12: Marqmike
Wow Bryon. I am not to smart and you explained something that I could understand and appreciate. Regarding certainty and truth. Really appreciated that.

You are quite welcome. I'm happy to talk about it. To some folks, issues relating to truth, certainty, knowledge, etc. may seem very far afield from audio, but IMO, they underlie a significant fraction of what gets discussed on A'gon. In fact, that's a big part of the reason I'm interested in this site.

It was also thoughtful, not condescending.

Thank you again, but I will quibble with that. Although I don't make a habit of being condescending, and I certainly wasn't being condescending when answering Nonoise's question, I am DELIBERATELY condescending when addressing certain people on A'gon. For example, people who say things like this...

05-22-12: Mrtennis
the question of verification as it applies to audio matters is immaterial.

Those kinds of pronouncements are the epitome of condescending, and they beg to be responded to with equal condescension.

I'm reminded of the kind of person who wanders around a party, inserts himself into a perfectly civil conversation, and then picks an argument with people who are trying to enjoy themselves. They do this while blissfully unaware of the fact that they are attempting to lecture people whose expertise far exceeds their own. That kind of staggering obliviousness is only possible because they're impervious to information outside what is already in their head.

And that is what it is to be a Dogmatist.

Bryon