why do we argue?

Al,
Great point you make about the black and white nature of the sides. There is an admitted bias to the article but in defense of the author, she made it clear which side she is on and how she feels about it.

Mapman,
We all have our Jekyll and Hyde counterparts but to have it under such control as to be merely dismissive instead of violent is commendable, indeed. :-)

All the best,
Nonoise

Nonoise,

Agree that we all have our dark sides. The key is how one manages it.

As Al has already pointed out, Goodwin’s article is a transparent case of strawmanning, i.e. misrepresenting your opponent and then attacking that misrepresentation. Goodwin’s “Objectivist” is a gross distortion of the views of actual Objectivists, both in the world of audio and in the real world.

Goodwin’s characterization of Objectivism also reveals a nearly complete lack of understanding of the use of that term in both philosophy and science, which is this…

1. An Objectivist about X believes in OBJECTIVE FACTS about X.

…where…

2. An “objective fact” is a fact that is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS.

So, for example, an Objectivist about chemistry believes that the facts of chemistry are independent of persons. An Objectivist about biology believes that the facts of biology are independent of persons. And so on.

In this sense, nearly ALL scientists are Objectivists. The one significant exception are physicists who question Objectivism on the grounds of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle. But even the breakdown of Objectivism at the lowest levels of microphysics does not cast doubt on the validity of Objectivism at higher levels of science, i.e. macrophysics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, neuroscience, etc.. Objectivism is not only the prevailing view of scientific facts, it is arguably the SINE QUA NON of science.

The contrast to all this is Subjectivism…

3. A Subjectivist about X does NOT believe in objective facts about X.

So, for example, a Subjectivist about morality does not believe in objective facts about morality. A Subjectivist about art does not believe in objective facts about art.

IMO, the difference between Objectivism and Subjectivism in the world of audio is very similar…

4. An Objectivist about audio topic X believes in objective facts about topic X.

5. A Subjectivist about audio topic X does not believe in objective facts about topic X.

With that in mind, nearly all audiophiles are BOTH Objectivist and Subjectivists, as Mapman pointed out. If the topic is “How much harmonic distortion does this amplifier have?” then nearly all audiophiles are Objectivists. That is, they believe that there is an objective fact about the quantity of an amplifier’s harmonic distortion.

If, on the other hand, the topic is “Who is the best blues musician of all time?” then nearly all audiophiles are Subjectivists. That is, they do NOT believe that there is an objective fact about who is the best blues musician.

Audiophiles split into Objectivists and Subjectivists when the topic is one where it's unclear whether there are objective facts, e.g. “Can an AC outlet affect sound quality?” For topics like those, the debate between Objectivism and Subjectivism tends to turn into a debate between two opposing views of knowledge…

6. The Objectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there are objective facts about how, facts that are DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE.

7. The Subjectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there need not be objective facts about how, and hence whatever facts exist NEED NOT BE DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE.

In other words, for topics for which there are no definitive answers, audiophiles tend to split along the lines of HOW MUCH CAN BE KNOWN BY SCIENCE. The opposing views are then labelled Objectivism and Subjectivism.

One last thing...

As Goodwin's article illustrates, Objectivism is often falsely equated with other views:

8. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Skepticism, i.e. a default ATTITUDE OF DOUBT. Some Objectivists are Skeptics, some are not.

9. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Verificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE. Some Objectivists are Verificationists, some are not.

10. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Justificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is PROVEN WITH CERTAINTY. Some Objectivists are Justificationists, some are not.

As I hope is obvious by now, Goodwin’s depiction of Objectivism is not only uncharitable, it is reductionistic, naïve, and facile. Objectivism is a view of far greater complexity, depth, and nuance than she presents, and probably than she understands.

Bryon

A great analysis, Bryon, as usual!

I think that one especially good insight, among several that were contained in your post, is:

Audiophiles split into Objectivists and Subjectivists when the topic is one where it's unclear whether there are objective facts, e.g. “Can an AC outlet affect sound quality?” For topics like those, the debate between Objectivism and Subjectivism tends to turn into a debate between two opposing views of knowledge…

6. The Objectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there are objective facts about how, facts that are DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE.

7. The Subjectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there need not be objective facts about how, and hence whatever facts exist NEED NOT BE DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE.

Objectivists are frequently mischaracterized as believing that if something isn't measurable, it isn't audible. Ms. Goodwin herself stated in the article that "The problems I encounter with many objectivists on the internet has to do with their mindset, they are closed-minded to anything sounding different if it cannot be measured." Which leads me to emphasize your careful use of the phrase "discoverable by science," and to note that that does not mean "has been discovered by science."

Best,
-- Al

That was a succinct clarification of the technically correct usage of Objectivist & Subjectivist Bryon. Your education is evident. When I used the terms in reference to audio "personalities," they referenced the differences between the two encampments. As you say, Objectivists believe independent, objective attributes verifiable by science are the sole determinant of why any given piece of audio gear sounds the way it does. We need a better term than Subjectivist for those who have take more nuanced or less rigid views of audio reality. As to your point #7, it's not so much that I think "whatever facts exist need not be discoverable by science" as that I'm willing to consider that science (in its current state of development) can't explain/define all the parameters that affect why something sounds the way it does. Admittedly, the rational part of my brain rebels at this. After all, many/most electrical engineers believe why a device sounds the way it does can be explained by an electrical circuit's characteristics of current, voltage, impedance, resistance, etc. People get argumentative when concepts like skin effect, eddy currents, conductivity of different metals, etc. (whose abilities to audibly affect a circuit are non-verfiable) are brought into the discussion. As your points 8,9, & 10 demonstrate, there can be different thresholds of verification or understanding before any given individual is willing to concede something is "real."