What are we objectivists missing?

@artemus_5

SCIENTISM IS NOT SCIENCE. you are full of contradictions. On one hand you distrust the senses. Yet you trust the science and the scientific machinery that was developed and brought forth by man’s human senses

So do you trust your speedometer in your car to give you an idea of how fast you are going, or do you go by just watching the terrain go by? Have you ever tried flying an airplane when you don’t have visual reference to the horizon? It’s important to understand in advance that your senses will confuse you in that situation about something as basic as which way is up and which way is down. You can build instruments in advance that are immune to the effect and use their readout to tell you which way is up when your naked senses are disoriented. It's not about not trusting our senses. It's about knowing the limits of our senses and finding ways to augment them. 

We are relying on both neural psychology, engineering, and psychoacoustics to collaboratively establish how "measurement X" corresponds to "sensation Y."

Exactly...

Objectivist and subjectivist alike wear blinfolds that make them unable to understand a dynamic acoustic/psycho-acoustic process of correlation it seems..

😁😊

@asctim

Why the straw man argument when I never made an argument against machines & science? Apparently my point went straight over your head. Sometimes airplane crashes mare due to faulty equipment, NOT human error, excerpt in trusting the faulty machine. The weathermen use all kinds of equipment. Yet, how often are they wrong? let me reverse your last sentence

"It’s not about not trusting our science It’s about knowing the limits of our science and finding ways to augment them."

Those who think that science has all the answers are deluded at best. This is scientism...and its very popular at the moment

@painter24 Thanks. Atttaboys are always helpful when we are generally outnumbered

@artemus_5  

It's true, the equipment can go wrong sometimes. When it comes to keeping the plane upright without visual access to the horizon the human will go wrong every time. We just can't do it at all. Even birds can't do it. I'm with you though on knowing the limits to our equipment and science. When the science can't explain something we need to acknowledge that and explore it further. First we need to make sure there's actually something there that needs explaining. If someone could deftly maneuver an airplane without visual horizon cues and no attitude instruments, then that would be something to investigate. If they just said they could, not so much. But we could easily put a hood on them and have them demonstrate this ability. If they argued that the hood distracted them, we'd have to wait for actual inclement weather. If they said the presence of an observer or the settings of the test distracted them, or the poor handling characteristics of a perfectly good plane didn't give them enough feedback, I'd just disregard the claim. With audio claims, if someone won't expose themselves to a good blind testing regimen then I'll just accept that they do perceive a difference in non blind testing situations but I've got no reason to infer it's anything beyond just a perception. I'm personally interested in these sighted perceptual effects but see no reason to assume they're actually caused by a meaningful change in the sound that's reaching their ears. 

Those who think that science has all the answers are deluded at best.

+1 @artemus_5

truly intelligent, educated people have an keen appreciation for what they (or we as mankind) do not yet know...