12-26-11: Learsfool
Bryon, your last post brings up a question for me - can one be UNwillfully dogmatic?
Of course I know you are joking, Learsfool, but this is actually an interesting question, and it leads to a number of observations that are relevant to the current disagreement. I think the answer is Yes, someone can be un-willfully dogmatic, if their dogmatism isnt intentional or deliberate. Here is
Oxfords definition
dogmatism: the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.
Willful dogmatism, in the sense I intend it, is deliberately obstructionist. But in my experience, not all dogmatism is like that. Some dogmatism is born of simple ignorance, some is born of a questionable education, and some is born of a closed mind.
I mention all this because I think its relevant to a significant number of posts on Agon, in which ideas are presented as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Some of those folks seem to be deliberate obstructionists - in other words, willfully dogmatic. Others seem to be uninformed, misinformed, or anti-informed.
The definition of dogmatism above seems to perfectly describe MrTs posts in this thread, which regularly occur on other threads. But I honestly dont know the source of MrTs dogmatism. I accused him of being deliberately obstructionist, but maybe Im being uncharitable. Maybe MrT is uninformed, misinformed, or anti-informed. Regardless of the source of dogmatism, it is probably the single most common obstacle to constructive conversation both on Audiogon and in the real world.
MrTs dogmatism about what counts as knowledge is particularly unfortunate, because I happen to have a long standing interest in the subjects MrT frequently alludes to. Under different conversational conditions, I would be delighted to talk about theories of epistemology, Humes problem of induction, Verificationism, the Logical Positivists attempt to derive knowledge from sensory experience, the differences between knowledge of logic/mathematics and empirical knowledge characteristic of science.
MrT is quite right in his belief that those issues are ALL relevant to issues that audiophiles care about. Just under the surface of many audiophile disagreements are important questions about sensory experience, concepts, theories, and knowledge. I think audiophiles would be surprised to learn how much their questions and debates mirror those of philosophers and scientists over the last four hundred years. There is an enormous wealth of dare I say KNOWLEDGE about these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, none of that can be fruitfully discussed under conversational conditions created by dogmatism. It is a bane to audiophiles and to anyone else interested in the exploration of ideas.
Bryon
