@clearthink,
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It’s one thing to lazily toss around the term "religion" as a slag, it’s another to actually produce an argument that what folks like me propose is akin to religion.
I am espousing simple empirical principles of inquiry. How exactly does a stance that asks us to recognize our own fallibility, asks us to be willing to scrutinize cherished beliefs or assumptions for error, and seek ways to weed out error for greater reliability of results....and to always be ready to have our beliefs modified or changed by good evidence...amount to anything like the dogma of religions?
It doesn’t. It’s the opposite, in fact. It's an anti-dogmatic stance. I'd happily change my mind about AC cables or whatever if there was good evidence they alter the sound of a system. Pure subjectivist-type audiophiles on the other hand, seem unwilling to admit their own fallibility - "you can't tell ME what I heard or didn't hear!." All the evidence of how they could be fooling themselves is waved off as not relevant to their own inviolable perceptual tools. It's a dogma about the their own subjectivity.
You can throw around words all you like in an emotional reaction, but actually producing an argument to take your claims seriously is another thing.
"It’s not LIKE religion it IS actually an actual religion ..."
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It’s one thing to lazily toss around the term "religion" as a slag, it’s another to actually produce an argument that what folks like me propose is akin to religion.
I am espousing simple empirical principles of inquiry. How exactly does a stance that asks us to recognize our own fallibility, asks us to be willing to scrutinize cherished beliefs or assumptions for error, and seek ways to weed out error for greater reliability of results....and to always be ready to have our beliefs modified or changed by good evidence...amount to anything like the dogma of religions?
It doesn’t. It’s the opposite, in fact. It's an anti-dogmatic stance. I'd happily change my mind about AC cables or whatever if there was good evidence they alter the sound of a system. Pure subjectivist-type audiophiles on the other hand, seem unwilling to admit their own fallibility - "you can't tell ME what I heard or didn't hear!." All the evidence of how they could be fooling themselves is waved off as not relevant to their own inviolable perceptual tools. It's a dogma about the their own subjectivity.
You can throw around words all you like in an emotional reaction, but actually producing an argument to take your claims seriously is another thing.