Take it on faith: A cease-and-desist letter to those who only believe in measurements


Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith). Faith is often considered to be distinct from and even contrary to science. I argue science is based on faith. Specifically, it is faith in the belief that measurements are always correct, and they alone can reveal the world around us. However, there is no evidence that this approach will always provide a correct and complete depiction of our environment.

I am not anti-science. In fact, I am all about science. I was a science major in college. I taught high school biology and chemistry. I employ science every day in my current career. I also use it to make decisions when it comes to audio, and I can point to a scientific basis behind my equipment decisions, speaker/listener locations and room treatment. I believe John Locke’s scientific method is a wonderful boon to mankind.  But although data may rule my life, I know that science has its limitations.

The scientific method is an empirical approach and relies on our eight senses or extensions thereof to measure phenomena, enabling us to better understand and control our environment. People who embrace this approach believe if something cannot be measured, it cannot exist. They have total faith in this approach and deny the credibility of others whose senses do not or cannot yield something in units. In essence, these disciples take it on faith that measurements are the only true way to make sense of the world. However, we just may not have developed the instrument that enables us to measure the event. Early digital is a good example of our senses superseding the limitations of our understanding of the technology and hence, our measurements. Other examples of this include our past beliefs that we could destroy mass, that the earth is flat, and the universe is not expanding. And cables and amplifiers all sound the same.

Others find their senses can reveal events that are not apparent to some and may not even be measurable. Some people can smell faint odors or feel a slight breeze that others cannot.  My wife can find a Petoskey stone on a beach out of thousands of rocks; I cannot see it even when I am standing over it. Different cables, fuses, amplifier topology, or cartridge design may or may not result in the same or even any data points and may or may not sound alike. But just because you cannot hear a difference nor measure a difference does not mean there is no difference. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just as good sound may be in their ear.

Some of us have at least as much faith in our ears as we do in our REW software and associated hardware. I start room setup with acoustic theory and then confirm with measurements, but the final placement is always a result of what sounds most pleasing. I would not know how to determine speaker toe-in using a microphone.

While I will always have to trust my senses, I am not handicapped by relying solely on those that are associated with a number.

 “…not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” William Bruce Cameron, 1963

tcutter

@jallan ,

The same mistakes were made by Julian Hirsch, who apparently never fully understood that whole circuit feedback was affected by time delay, and thus great amounts of such feedback, while reducing static distortion for an unvarying signal of a given frequency, actually greatly increased distortion for dynamic music reproduction through transient intermodulation distortion.

I was just telling the cashier at Wal-Mart that the other day.

@mahgister  

"and for a phenomenon to be considered real, it must be capable of being shared..."

As I said in reply to an earlier post by ghdprentice, "When everybody believes the same thing, then it is regarded as a truth". You must share the belief for it to be true/real. 

On the other hand, this is just about listening to music that you like on gear that produces a sound you enjoy. 

If Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Bortoft, all physicists  consider Goethe phenomenology not only useful but deep i am curious to know why you disagree with it...

Saying i disagree in a discussion is not enough...

Why  ? 

Where  am i wrong ? 

Do you think as Hinton that philosophy is useless, consciousness is an illusion born from computation,  natural Science as Goethe promoted it is just  folklore of the past? 

I side with Ernst Cassirer behind Goethe... The "rainbow" is not just a play of atomes and photons we need a subjective observing consciousness, and a rainbow is also a "symbolic form" not a mere illusion ...A meaning not reducible to bits...

Children disagree , adults explain themselves ...

 

@mahgister 

I understand your viewpoint.

I don’t agree with it.