mahgister,
I listen to your argument, and they are not neutral,
No argument is "neutral." An argument defends a certain position.And "neutrality" is not a cognate for "reasonable." If you take a "neutral" position between the claim of a flat or a round (
oblate spheroid) earth, as if neither is more likely, you aren't doing much better than the flat-earther in terms of grappling with the evidence.
The question is whether the argument is reasonable/sound.
your agenda is
dismissing any " audiophile claims" … Audiophiles are a crowd akin to
anti-vaxing…Case closed... :)
No not all audiophile claims. I tend to challenge the grounds for certain claims when there are good reasons for skepticism (And I give the reasons). My "agenda" is trying to do this hobby while not being credulous in the face of every audiophile or audio-company's claim.
If I find certain claims dubious, I'll explain why.
And I've never done so dogmatically. I usually point out that it's not that I know the claimed phenomenon is false - it could be real - but rather I'm giving the reasons why I find the claim dubious or doubtful. Good argument/evidence could get me to believe in the claim.
And I'm usually careful to distinguish the audiophiles I'm talking about, which are "those who believe in the phenomenon in question" and/or the purely subjectivist audiophiles who think their hearing is the ultimate authority on sonic reality, and who reject the relevance of measurements, science etc in the discussion.
It is wrong to presume all audiophiles think that way. In fact, I see it as a problem that the purely subjectivist audiophiles seem to simply presume theirs is the correct approach and thus anyone entering an alternative opinion, skeptical of a subjectivist claim, is merely trolling or sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.No! Plenty of audiophiles do not go in for every type of tweak purely on subjectivists grounds, and they want better evidence than that. There is a wide range of approaches to the hobby of hi-end audio, and the door ought to be left open not JUST for those who operate on the Golden Ear paradigm, but those who want to hold claims by manufacturers and audiophiles to more stringent standards before accepting claims.
I know perfectly well all there is to think about your vision of the
world: astrology, anti-vaxers, audiophiles, crystals users, etc. all the
same... Am I forget something ? oh yes, intelligent design, homeopathy,
tarot reader,...the list is too way longer to make, but you know it is
very easy to read your mind set...
How self-satisfying it clearly is for you to have pegged me so perfectly that you can dismiss my position without any actual arguments.
First, I don't think you could actually produce a cogent critique of my "mindset" based on what you've written. I can see the seams of strawmen and over-simplification already in what you've written.
More important, all you've produced is a sort of snide ad hominem: "You are so easy to read" instead of actually showing anything I've written to be unreasonable.
That's intellectually lazy and more in line with trolling. Don't you care to contribute better than that?
No one's forcing you to participate. But if you are going to, and think you can just drop in some ad hominem implications and job done, you should expect some pushback, right?
