2. misc-audio
  3. 136079-8469

Beware the audio guru

There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil." Those who disagree are accused of being "deluded," or suffering some insurmountable bias, or attempting to further some commercial agenda. On occasion, they have taunted detractors with an appeal that they engage in a wager - one guy wanted $25,000 cash up front and an agreement drafted by lawyers. Another offered 5-to-1 odds.

I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.

A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.

These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
Ag insider logo xs@2xcleeds
teo_audio
2,197 posts
 
Well, you know how it is. If you can’t fart in a crowded elevator and observe the pained attempts at normalcy, then what fun would life be?

Anyway, it can be like that. Some value normalcy over acts of open noticing of the silliness of some of the frameworks of this thing we are in, and so called space we occupy.

Fitting in and dancing the square dance of life with everyone else creates enough cohesion and stability to notice.... but too much cohesion creates a sameness that is pretty well synonymous with death.

In there somewhere is this lurching thing we call humanity, it moves like a drunken car slamming off the road barrier on one side, over to the other. If it were stable, that would just be another form of death.

Sameness is sameness in any context an it is dangerous to the growth and continuance of intelligence, but too much chaos breaks down the frameworks which intelligence attempts to create itself in.

So who’s to say in the end? Some human, or human organization... with a limited view? I don’t think so....
rodman99999
6,132 posts
 
@erik_squires -  I was asking, based of the classical definition(but not seriously, anyway)   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
erik_squires
16,059 posts
 
Well, you know how it is. If you can’t fart in a crowded elevator and observe the pained attempts at normalcy, then what fun would life be?

A real fartist acts, and leaves, knowing death will be upon his victims in less than three floors. 
rodman99999
6,132 posts
 
Science and religion?

The typical human problem, and one whose answer religion aims to supply, is always of the following form: Should I do this? Should we do this? Should the government do this? To answer this question we can resolve it into two parts: First: If I do this, what will happen? And second: Do I want that to happen? What would come of it of value...of good?

Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question, any question, philosophical or other, which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment, is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science.

I claim that whether you want something to happen or not: what value there is in the result, and how you judge the value of the result (which is the other end of the question: Should I do this?), must lie outside of science because it is not a question that you can answer only by knowing what happens; you still have to judge what happens, in a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view, or the ethical aspect of religion, and scientific information. Sound familiar, to anyone?

rodman99999
6,132 posts
 
@erik_squires - That’s much harder to get away with, climbing to altitude in a crowded Cessna 182(especially, on a hot day). I’ve found, looking at the pilot, and simply saying, "DAMN!", works well though.
More to discover