Communication is essential to understanding, and arguments are just another form of communicating. The trick is to know when the person you are arguing with is sincere in his posits.
All the best,
Nonoise
All the best,
Nonoise
why do we argue?
Just as arguments are another form of communication, being 'funny' can be another form of being serious, serious being thoughtful, careful and deliberate and funny being just another way of getting your view across without the associated cost of being serious. Or something like that. All the best, Nonoise |
Can it be that this thread prompted this article? http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/subjectivist.htm See, we do contribute, even by arguing. All the best, Nonoise |
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 |
It's quite the discipline to analyze a situation before speaking as well as Bryon and Al do. Weigh the facts, consider the angles, draw insight, analyze still more, and compare before posting. This has all been like a min-classroom in critical thinking and I feel better for it. I like to think I have feet in both camps, depending on the topic. As one physicist at CERN jokingly said about the boggs particle they found, " It's more like that godd*mned particle than the god particle". Something was there, all the time. It just took a whole lot of patience and effort to find it. I feel the same about this hobby (within reason). All the best, Nonoise |
Categories aside, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, once something is heard, and appreciated, and/or moves you, we all become subjectivists, don't we? :-) The objectivist might say, after hearing, that the result confirms the data without needing to verify it. I say they are overlooking the fact that the data IS not needed if the result confirms on an auditory and emotional level (here comes that placebo argument). We don't have to know the measurements, or how it works. Our ears tell us it does and, if good, our emotions respond sympathetically. Let someone else test all they want, after the fact. We do this all the time with all manner of equipment that have already been established and never give it a second thought. We swap out X for Y and it gets better or worse. Now, something wicked this way comes, and all bets are off? Just try it for yourself None of what I just said matters if the objectivist refuses to listen. All the best, Nonoise |
Bryon, This may be an example of "entrenched Objectivism": http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/28/11920006-16-year-olds-equations-set-off-buzz-over-325-year-old-physics-puzzler. It seems to have set off a firestorm as to the intent of the teenager and the relevance of his discovery. Apparently there are some big egos in the field of science. All the best, Nonoise |
It would be interesting to see where our military falls on this issue. Having a simplified guidance system (thanks kid!) would make it easier to hit their target(s). Our military (Pentagon & DOD) already buys into global warming as do all the major insurers and underwriters and have contingency plans to deal with it. They looked at the science and sidestepped the hype. If they start hitting things more accurately, on a continuous basis, more power to the kid. :-) All the best, Nonoise |
Quite the perspective there, Uru975. You forgot to mention there would be no one to argue with anymore. It reminds me of the old Gahan Wilson cartoon:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E-4d6l_7SXg/S13fSHjSQ7I/AAAAAAAAAGM/qhPZJJrbpWw/s1600-h/gahanwilson.jpg All the best, Nonoise |
Al, I like and agree with your first point. Externalities are always at play whether intended or not. To do something in a tightly controlled environment can negate its results in the real world where variables exist. With so much in play, in so many systems, what is claimed to work (benefit) has to be repeatable, to some degree. I also agree with your 2nd assessment and Mapmans, if that's possible. Broad applications are general in nature and degrees of improvement will vary from system to system. They would still hold true, to some degree. And your question as to whether some less expensive alternative exists, if the principle is the same but the ingredients are of lesser quality, then the benefit can escape scrutiny given the smaller nature of improvement. It could be chalked up to imagination. (there, I said it) :-) There has to be a cost/improvement relationship point at which the benefit justifies the tweak. It could be why some hear a bigger improvement from Furutech fuses compared to HiFi Tuning fuses. I wouldn't know since that's beyond my pay grade (which further backs up your point). All the best, Nonoise |