Of course. Like I said. He had mastered the art of forum writing. Most of this stuff he has it ready to copy/ paste. Like those phrases the “techs” use at overseas support / call centers
What is wrong with Audiophiles?
Well, many issues. The pursuit after uber-expensive interconnects, speaker cables, power conditioners, power cables can be rediculous. Not to mention Audiophiles who paint the outer sides of their CD's with a green marker. A few days ago I visited a local hi-fi exhibition in Israel. Two of the most impressive rooms where the YG Acoustics with an all NAGRA amplification and the Focal room. The speaker cables in the first room cost $70,000. That was also the cost of the speaker cable in the Focal room. One could buy a BMW or a Merc AMG or a Porsche for that much money. Does this make sense to you? And, lest I forget, I have an Audiophile neighbor in the building where I live. I offered him to borrow a CD of an Israeli singer that I admire. How is the quality of the recording, he asked. "average", I answered. "No, I can't listen to average recordings", he replied. I call that "Audiophilia neurosis".
- ...
- 117 posts total
In some asylum of the past it was common to encounter in the white corridors some insane man perfectly logical and sometimes a kind of scientist, speaking to some foolish patients unable even to think orderly about something...It is my impression of this thread.... Perhaps am I the more foolish amongst all the customers of the place, if I myself think of me that I am the doctor in charge of the asylum ? I will be silent now, perhaps I am the doctor in charge after all ? Or only a fool reading soul of other fools... In this short parabola of mine, each of us we are actors and we plays all and each part like actors, forgetting if we are this person. or this one, or the doctor in charge, or a spectator... Being wise we discover that we are all that at least once...My best to all without distinction... |
OK, let’s get down to brass tacks. Much of what has been said by the “non-believers” is pseudo skeptical nonsense. Yes, there were some truisms and facts thrown in for good measure to throw off those who might be sitting on the fence. I mean, let’s call it what it is and not beat around the bush. So, what exactly is pseudo-skepticism, you ask. Pseudo-skepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so. In 1987, Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8] In 1987, while working as a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudo-skeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar (which he founded): In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof... Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them. — Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5] |
- 117 posts total