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

@jrareform 

Perhaps our definitions conflict. Here's my viewpoint.

First, some definitions:

There are four forces in nature: Gravitational, Electro/weak (combines electricity, magnetism, and Weak) and the Strong Force. That's it. So far.

These forces are separate and distinct from each other. Gravity does not interact with any of the other forces. Nor do any of the other three interact with gravity.

Objects are susceptible to all these forces.

In determining the equations of motion for an object, one must separately calculate the forces on an object from each force and then vector sum them. Then one uses the usual F= m*a and some math to get the equation of motion.

@mahgister 

No problem. These discussions are very helpful because they force me examine my approach much more closely than I would have otherwise in order to make sense when I write about it to others.

I'm glad we're conversing and not yelling!

@jrareform 

A few words on distortion. 

Electrical distortion is the departure of an electronic system from linear behavior. It is well known and can be easily modeled and measured. The human interaction with sound and music is not as well understood. New knowledge will come from studies of this interaction, as you've written.

My field of study is Optics. There are numerous departures from linearity in optical systems. They're called "aberrations". The primary ones are: Defocus (near or far sighted eyesight), Coma, Astigmatism, Spherical Aberration and Distortion (distortion has a very specific meaning. It can be demonstrated by taking an extreme close up photo of a face. That bloated look is primary optical "barrel" distortion (the opposite is "pincushion "distortion). There can be an infinite number of optical distortions. Fortunately, in most cases only the ones I've mentioned matter for human perception and only defocus and astigmatism are normally corrected for. Lasik Surgery can correct a bit more.

In audio electronics, there are two primary aberrations : distortion and transient intermodulation distortion (non linear response to two signals at different frequencies). I'm not aware of any others.

 

 

I am not a scientist. You are. We need more here. Then i welcome you again and will enjoy reading your posts. it is already the case.

Thanks

 

@mahgister 

No problem. These discussions are very helpful because they force me examine my approach much more closely than I would have otherwise in order to make sense when I write about it to others.

I'm glad we're conversing and not yelling!

It was Schopenhauer, not Heisenberg that wrote extensively about  "world-as-appearance".

Heisenberg’s uncertainty is valid in the field it is in: Quantum Mechanics. He was not writing philosophy. He was attempting to describe a physical phenomenon.

@kevemaher 

I'm familiar with Schopenhauer. The point about Heisenberg was his influence on how we view things, specifically in the realm of epistemology. One commenting on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was John Dewey, who addressed it in his 1929 Gifford Lectures.

Dewey used Heisenberg to argue that "knowing is seen to be a participant in what is finally known" —in other words, that observation necessarily plays a role in what's observed. This confirmed Dewey's critique that a "spectator theory of knowledge" was untenable: we cannot observe nature without interacting with it, making knowledge "one kind of interaction which goes on within the world" rather than passive reception.

That's the connection I was trying to make.