@tomrk +1
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
- ...
- 195 posts total
@kevemaher I hear what you're saying but disagree. If you think that electromagnetism and mechanical systems cannot be influenced by other forces of nature such as gravity, which we are still forming a complete understanding of, then I disagree. If you're saying within the confines of a lab experiment with controls, sure that's the case. But that's losing the overall meaning of my words. It's not to say one day we will redefine things like "frequency response" as I think that book is closed. But we are learning quite a bit more about distortion currently that is definitely new and is certainly worth discussing as a frontier unknown in electromagnetic or physical systems (of which sound is massively associated and some argue can be completely reduced to these fields, which I again disagree). This is to say, maybe one day we will have a more thorough understanding of the "system" which in this case is the interaction between music and the human brain. And not just any human brain but the individual that is hearing the music. Science is very good at determining the hows from the standpoint of the observed. Once an observer is brought in, you now are trying to understand a system which is the interaction between the brain and the music, a far more complex inquiry than simply physical or electromagnetic systems on their own. I think we agree more than disagree but I thought my point was valid. |
Thanks for bringing this up. I apologize for not being clear. What I did say is: "there is no new physics to be discovered in classical mechanics and electromagnetism". I did not say that there won't be new applications. I spent a career doing just that - creating instruments. I agree with what you've written. You are making a case for new applications, not new physics. I also agree that we know less about the human interaction with music than we do about creating instruments to reproduce music. This field of study is not physics, but a study of human behavior. |
The goal of the study of physics is to provide descriptions of natural phenomena using scientific means (the Scientific Method). I am clearly way less informed on philosophy than you are. I will defer to your superior knowledge on this topic. My perspective and yours are both valid. Please forgive me if I implied that your approach is invalid. This was not my intent. Even though we are conversing using the English language, our world views make these conversations very difficult.
|
i have a tendency to over react... I understand you reading your posts and i cannot disagree with you ... my sincere respectful salutation and welcome here ...
|
- 195 posts total