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
prof
3,479 posts
 
 
@rodman99999,

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?


If you'd said there was consistency between a moral view and scientific information I would have agreed.

But when you say a consistency between *religious* morality and scientific information I would disagree.  Religious morality tends to incorporate historical and ontological claims that can conflict with scientific information.  (Not to mention, the general conflict between faith, or religious knowledge and science itself...)

But that's a discussion for another type of forum....:-)

Off to consult my Audio Guru....

Cheers.
rodman99999
6,171 posts
 
@prof - Had you bothered to read the follow-up post(then again, perhaps you did and it didn’t register), those words were a verbatim quote, from a very well regarded physicist, Nobel laureate and lecturer’s book. That’s why I postscripted the statement with, "Sound familiar to anyone?" In case you’re unable to find that post and the reference: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pleasure-of-finding-things-out-richard-phillips-feynman/1102811398 Perhaps your audio guru can help you with your situational awareness. Happy listening!
prof
3,479 posts
 
@rodman99999

OT/

Thanks. I admit I read your post pretty fast, saw the "sounds familiar" and just assumed you were referencing something else. I didn’t see your follow up post.

Nonetheless I presume in either case your quoting it meant you agreed with the quote. (A reasonable assumption...?)

Feynman was, of course, awesome. An incredibly sharp intellect and a great teacher. But even the sharpest intellects can go fuzzy outside their field, especially on religion, as I think Feynman does here (having read the expanded version). He identifies the conflicts I alluded to, but then goes a bit non-committal and mushy on whether the conflicts can be removed, even suggesting at some points they can be.

I would argue that’s wrong - there’s going to be a conflict. Certainly in the case of the classic revealed religions and accepting science and the scientific method. And Feynman was trying to keep the God Of Religions in view in his argument. As for deistic arguments with more modest scope, some of those involve teleological arguments that conflict with science, others are metaphysical/ontological arguments that are at least supposed to be "outside science" but even some of those teeter on the edge. Metaphysical/ontological arguments are fun to discuss too. (I’m a bit of a philosophy geek, no expert but I enjoy this stuff - I get all geeked when the subjects turn to ethics, free will, science, religion, epistemology etc. So your post caught my eye. It looks like you have an interest too).

But...this ain’t the place. Too bad there’s no "lounge" around here. :-)

Cheerio!

/OT

Back to audio...

keithahughes
32 posts
 
@supertweak - perhaps share this pearl of wisdom with your MENSA compatriots:  When you find yourself in a hole (especially one of your own making), the first order of business is to *stop digging*.  Acting the part of a petulant child hardly helps your position. 
rodman99999
6,171 posts
 
@prof- As I mentioned before(while venting), " Whatever piques my interest: I’ll watch, listen, taste, touch, or smell it for myself, thank you." It seems, I’m not alone and find myself in good company(on and off, over the centuries). ie: https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/max-planck-on-god/ (albeit, only a list of, "Christian" scientists AND- not that I particularly agree with their individual theologies): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology It’s harder to tell, what(exactly) the many Jewish scientists(especially the plethora of physicists), have actually believed. I Do know it’s VERY hard, to separate a Jew, from their religion(.2% of the world’s population/22.5% of awarded Nobels- DISPORPORTIONATE?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_scientists Thankfully, The Manhattan Project had a few AND(very possibly), Heisenberg sabotaged the Nazi’s atomic aspirations. Indeed: too bad there’s no lounge.
More to discover