Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?

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 isn’t intentional or deliberate. Here is Oxford’s 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 it’s relevant to a significant number of posts on A’gon, 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 MrT’s posts in this thread, which regularly occur on other threads. But I honestly don’t know the source of MrT’s dogmatism. I accused him of being deliberately obstructionist, but maybe I’m 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.

MrT’s 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, Hume’s 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

No, and no. What is "accuracy?" And to what? Accepting that accuracy is a deliriously liberating thing to an audiophile. Just go for the coloration that you like and be done with it.

One of my "reference systems" is the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Another is any of the amazing misic rooms we have in Chicago.

So accuracy and fidelity to thise soundsbis impossible. So now what? The sound you like. And be happy.

hy byron:

i can provide a definition of knowledge:

here it is:

justified true belief. justification requires proof and knowledge implies certainty.

if you consider the above dogmatic, so be it.

the above definition is not otiginal.

i would also appreciate an instance of a statement i have made that connotes dogmatism.

if i have an opinion which is not shared by others, i hardly would consider it a case of dogmatism.

i may be an iconoclast, but i reject your accusation, without evidence on your part.

if you consider my statements indicative of dogmatism, i consider your position, at best, probably true and probably false, but not definitive.

this is my last philosophical statement on this thread.

Bryon, there is another possibility - that Mrtennis is merely yanking our chain for fun/humor.

Another question for you - is my copy of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy that my uncle gave me years ago and that I have yet to read going to cover such things you mentioned as "theories of epistemology, Hume’s 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?" I plan on reading this book fairly soon, as my intro to philosophy.

12-27-11: Mrtennis
if i have an opinion which is not shared by others, i hardly would consider it a case of dogmatism.

i may be an iconoclast, but i reject your accusation, without evidence on your part.

My suggestion that you are dogmatic isn’t based on the fact that you have opinions “not shared by others.” It’s based on the fact that you present those opinions “as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others” (Oxford dictionary), which captures my intent using the word ‘dogmatic.’ Here are some phrases that typically accompany the comments of someone who is NOT dogmatic…

I believe…
IMO…
IME…
As I see it…
My view is…
I respectfully disagree…

I have read a large number of your posts here on A’gon, and I can say with confidence that there is a conspicuous shortage of these kinds of phrases in your comments. Instead, you routinely present your ideas “as undeniably true, without consideration of THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS.” It is as though you were correcting someone about a universally acknowledged fact, rather than contributing to a discussion on topics where opinions vary and facts are often difficult to determine. IMO, the failure to acknowledge that the conflicting views of others may nevertheless contain some validity is a characteristic element of dogmatism.

Another characteristic element of dogmatism, IMO, is the unwillingness to change your mind when presented with evidence that contradicts your own point of view. After reading a large number of your posts over the last two years, I can honestly say that I cannot recall a single case of you changing your mind, even when presented evidence from people who are highly informed. You may consider that a sign that your views are faultless, but I consider it sign of dogmatism.

Having an opinion that is “iconoclastic,” to use your word, has nothing to do with my perception of dogmatism. It is the unwillingness to acknowledge the possible validity of contrary opinions and the resistance to changing your mind when presented with evidence that creates the perception of dogmatism.

I am married to a clinical psychologist. She is an expert at identifying seemingly trivial behavior that is emblematic of larger personality characteristics. Having lived with her for years, I've learned something about that kind of interpretation. I mention this for the following reason...

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.

Bryon