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

You dont agree about what ? 

smiley

What i said is just common sense ...

 I can reduce all i said to this sentence which is a question about "our value" a question about mankind ultimate choice :

Is the primary and ultimate goal of science the power  to deliver Nature to us bound hand and foot like an object, or is its primary and ultimate goal a means for a necessary transformation of our consciousness and thought?

You dont agree ? 

 

 Perhaps for you all this is rhetorical wind, but we live through the most important era since the beginning of our history and this choice is about our freedom and is related to the question about the nature of "science" ...

 

@mahgister 

Again, I’ve read your comment. 

I don’t agree.

@phusis 

Hah! 

Yeah, I have gotten way far out there haven't I?

Discussions on fora like this always trend toward extremes. At the least, the ones I'm having with a few brave souls are not rancorous. 

In lunging to find a reason for this phenomenon, the best explanation I have come up with is that because music can be considered a universal language, people from all kinds of life experiences enjoy it and appreciate it.

Sometimes this leads to a conversation between two extremes. On one hand are the "measurements oriented" people. On the other hand, there are the "I only trust my ears" crowd. Conversation between extremes tend to revert to pop philosophy since that's where a true conversation between these extremes can happen. 

The majority is somewhere in between the extremes and can't be bothered by all the fuss. They know better than to get into these types of conversations.

I'm on the "measurements" side. I've dedicated my working life to the understanding of optical phenomena, developing many instruments in the process. Measurements are how I grade my performance.

I truly think as a species we know a lot about our ability to quantify measurable performance parameters. But we are in our infancy in understanding human response to music. Both are required for deeper understanding.

I agree...

 

I truly think as a species we know a lot about our ability to quantify measurable performance parameters. But we are in our infancy in understanding human response to music. Both are required for deeper understanding.

 

 

 

By the way i am not in  "the measurement say it all" club nor in the "my ears know it all and best" club... I am interested by psycho-acoustics for philosophical reason... (not pop philo ) I dont think Goethe view of nature is pop philo by the way i hope you dont think such too ....

You job is "optics measurements" mine was philosophy among other subject...

For example i dont think that Wittgenstein meditating Goethe color theory and the limits of physical science is pop philosophy...

I dont think that Edwin Land meditation on colors reading Goethe is pop philosophy either...

I think you will agree if i understand well your quoted sentence above with which i agree completely...

my very best to you sincerely ...

@kerrybh 

I wonder if Kant preferred analog or digital?

He appears to swing both ways. In Kant’s philosophy, "analog" refers to a tool for understanding the relationship between two concepts by finding a structural similarity, often used to bridge the gap between the known and the unknown. On the other hand, Kant Digital Hub brings over 25 years of expertise in Graphics & Printing, now combined with the latest in web development technology. 

According to Monty Python:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table