Line between having an open mind vs being objective(basing on your current knowledge)

AKA:

e.g. nobody knew much/believed that the various countries govts was spying on us until Edward snowden and wikileaks.

e.g. back in the early 80/90s/2000, people thought that Sigma Delta /DSD was superior to R2R/PCM but now (most of) you know how it turn out(in 2010s).





After watching this video, I have more appreciation towards the science and engineering know-how behind vibration isolation and how it affect bass response or other equipment:


Question is how do you keep yourself being open minded but still maintain a level of objectivity?

 

By trusting the scientific method over your own experiences, but preferring your own experiences anyway.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Mattel-30188-Magic-8-Ball/dp/B00001ZWV7

 

That video might have its crazy bits,, but it is not batshit crazy (already admitted that I might even buy the guy's product, if I had cash and a use for it, on another thread.

But the audio world is full of stuff that is batshit and worse. One has to have an open mind to see that, right?

 

Speaking of batshit crazy, this has always puzzled/bemused me to no end, why does Stereophile regard this 1990s game console as audiophile grade transport/player? I mean there's nothing anyone would consider electrically or mechanically ingenious about this console(especially when you compare to Sony ES or Marantz KI editions).
http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/708play/#3mkdMAFpRKQPHyDb.97

 

The guys who think that you can play Mario and Zelda on a PS1? Disqualified.

 

Let's mix up a few ComputerAudiophiles into a stereotype which is avid, if not rabid. (Not hard to do!)

What happens when that stereotype walks into a room-full of experienced, qualified computer techies and scientists The gamut, from on-the-ground hands-on, to the academics that invent these things) and tells them about the sound he gets from his fancy SATA cables, audiophile RAM and platinum network cables, and they laugh.

Is he likely to have a sufficiently open mind to just consider that what he calls his own senses may not be the world's ultimate authority on reality?

I doubt it --- but hey, I'm prejudiced!

 

Can't wait for the day these scientist/bio engineers can implant a Bluetooth audio chip into my brain's auditory system and I can listen to the music streamed directly into my brains. Then we can screw 20-20khz or whatever our eardrums are picking up or not and kill those headphone companies who charge arm and legs for their nanofag designs.

 

Ha Ha, Bluetooth... Not enough bandwidth to carry uncompressed audio! I'll get wifi implanted into my brain: it will sound better than your bluetooth!

 

science bitches!
being objective is being open minded. why the VS? or did you mean open minded as in gullible? like how I maybe should help out that nice Nigerian prince that sends me emails all the time? what if he's legit and I'm missing out on a lot of money? the possibility isn't zero after all, plus he's really nice and many people are talking about him.

but that's the thing, should we really care about everything that has a ludicrously small chance of occurrence or isn't even factually verified? should I get lottery tickets because you can't win if you don't play? is that really being open minded? IMO being open minded is accepting that the possibility isn't zero unless proved. and that's exactly what the scientific method does. there is a clear acceptance that lack of evidence that something exists, does not prove it doesn't exist. isn't it the very definition of open minded?

the scientific method tells us to test any relevant new data, and if accepted as factual(falsifiable, repeatability...), to incorporate it to our model, use it to develop new hypothesis and go test them to see if our model is closer to the truth/or not. if the new data can disprove something we considered factual, then we change our world view on that matter to better fit reality as we now know it. instead of right vs wrong, science is trying to get closer to the truth of things while not necessarily ever reaching such truth. and while sometimes going the wrong way before realizing it. the famous 1337th law of thermodynamic "shit happens".
we certainly know more with science than a guy without, but we also know a good deal more than people a hundred years ago. we started super wrong about pretty much everything, and we're slowly getting better. now we know that if a girl weights as much as a duck, then she's a witch. it's documented. ^_^


“Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.”
Richard P. Feynman

I tend to agree with that one random dude.

now in audio I usually decide based on taste, price and how comfy something is, so the scientific method stays warmly in my pants. but when facts are what we look for, and we're not creating stuff, skepticism and what science knows at this point are way more relevant than wondering if we're open mind enough. IMO





@OP, about your 2 examples. can I suggest that they suck bad?
we had spies at least since the first wars occurred if the guys weren't total idiots. and most likely long before that. sure being presented with evidence has great meaning, because the government can't just keep lying about it like everybody always did(else it's not effective spying if you go around telling people). but it would actually be weird if paranoid people(so most of those with a tiny bit of power) weren't constantly trying to know what someone else is doing.

about delta sigma/dsd vs R2R/PCM I don't know what you're talking about? associating formats and DAC designs is plain wrong and looks like a super loaded argument.

 

Semi-social political post.

In the history of civilisation there has always been the issue of those in power wanting to know about their "civilians" and at the same time trusting their "civilians" with a range of freedoms to do as pleases the individual. Add some laws, agreements both written and unwritten and you have your basic civilisation. Sometimes the balance is too biased to one side and then things can go wrong. Expect someone to speak up at one point. That is not science, that is history.

If anyone thinks that what I am saying here is new, well read "The Art Of War" and "The Prince" among others. Once you start digging in history and you learn more things about society and the concepts of peace and war than they teach you at school.

@Marvey , interesting point.

End of semi-social political post.

Time for Beethoven again...

 

10 years ago, I had to give up jogging. My right knee was essentially shot from a misspent youth and numerous injuries. The VA wasn't particularly helpful, so I started looking at alternative approaches. This eventually led me to glucosamine chondroitin, or whatever that shit is called. Instant relief.

A few months later, I got bored and did a little research about how this product supposedly worked. What I learned is that it didn't work - it was a giant steaming load of pseudoscientific bullshit. And you know what? After that, it no longer worked. The plus side is that I no longer had to spend money on a product that never really worked, but honestly, I miss being pain-free.

This remains a question that I still think about today as a self-professed skeptic in most things. Did I do myself a favor by busting this myth? When I was treating my knee successfully with a placebo, was I spending my money wisely?

These days, I do a lot of research before I spend my money. I like to think that I buy shit that works. When I see people buying shit that probably does not work (or at least doesn't work as well as it's supposed to), I ask myself whether I should tell them so, and then I ask myself why I would want to. Would I be telling them for their sake, or for mine? And if they have the money to spend and are happy with their purchases, would convincing them otherwise be doing them a favor?

I see audio like I see a lot of other industries...it's all bullshit until proven otherwise, but I've been happy with bullshit before.

 

EDIT: This became a bit of a ramble. The point here is simple. Don't try too hard to understand things. Reach for what you can understand now and let the rest be where it is until it's a little closer to you. The idea is to draw the conclusions that require the fewest judgment calls and the shortest leaps in comprehension. Don't complicate something you already can't grasp. Remove pieces instead of adding new ones to make everything make sense. Ideas need time to settle and grow before you go swinging them around.

I think this is a solid method when trying to extract the most useful information without getting carried away... ...with anything, really.

I know what I know. And everything else... ...well, I just don't know. *shrugs*

To me, it's all about being impartial. You learn more slowly that way because it's all up in the air, but it makes truth easier to spot. What little you do gather has more worth, while a pile of rocky theories about literally everything may grant you nothing but the satisfaction of a perceived understanding.

One thing that I like to remind myself... ...you can't see in two places at once. In order for you to see one thing, something else must be overlooked.

It's important to question yourself... ...especially the things you just kind of accept without thought. Maybe you don't feel you need to give it the thought. Maybe you've already been down that road. But maybe you now know something that you didn't before. Maybe it's time to revisit that idea. Your reference point changes over time. It pays to periodically go back to where you've been before. Better to work out kinks in your understanding sooner, rather than later... ...before there is a more pressing need to.

You just have to ask yourself why you believe the things you do. Quite often, you think there's a reason, but there actually isn't. Other times, the reasons you believe something don't hold up when you take that model and try to apply it elsewhere. A lot of people consider themselves to be reasonable, I don't think this is true at all... ...or at least, I know it to be untrue about myself. Our reasoning serves to satiate our emotions, not the other way around. We have an emotional desire to resolve conflicting observations. We like to either bury or eliminate cognitive dissonance, when we can. And from that, reason is born. So the important question to ask when examining yours or anyone else's reasoning is "What's the payoff?" What is the purpose of your rationale? What are the benefits? What can you do with this reasoning? In short, can it deliver the goods?

I like to think of myself as constantly making models of various aspects of reality. But it can never stop there. Just because you have a model that makes sense doesn't mean it's useful. A practical model of reality has predictive capabilities. If, at any time, your model fails you, then you have to go back and try again. Something is missing, there.

Of course, in the realm of subjectivity, it's not always such a bad thing to see what you want to see. But it's also not a bad idea to ask why you're seeing what you are. There are pros and cons to either approach. Accept what you see as fact without or in spite of evidence and you will be mislead from time to time. Question it and you may not like what you see.

Personally, my balance is to not so much question what I enjoy, but rather, question what makes it enjoyable to me. Not "Should it matter?" but instead "Why does/doesn't it matter?" If I don't know, I don't know. I simply enjoy it. But if I can isolate a cause, then I can see only benefits in the endeavor. Everything else is just kind of whatever.

 

Not sure why but everytime after watching vsauce videos, my mind gets blown:

 

I find that video quite reassuring!

 

How does one know that what one thinks he/she/it knows is factually correct, and when factually incorrect does it even matter to the person in question ?
I believe belief (religion of all sorts, not just spiritual) is not based on facts but what one assumes is or must be true not necesarilly based on their own observations.
These observations may be (partly) correct but may also not be because of the many variables one considers infallible while observing things.

Audio is a religion... or at least that's how I observe it to be so therefore to me it is.
Religion is the root of all evil.
Audio = evil.

 

So, you chose the path of evil.

I think religion has much to teach us. The bible, for instance, has some beautiful lessons. It can teach you a lot about how people work. Maybe it's not the best book to read if you want to understand the universe, but it can at least teach you some things about yourself. Maybe it doesn't really explain anything, but maybe it doesn't have to. Maybe it's best used as just a little food for thought... ...a supplement to facts that fills spaces where facts cannot exist.

It's all a matter of perspective. You can interact with religion without getting funny ideas about the world. But in order to do so, you have to be wary of absolutes. The realm of absolutes is where shit tends to get hairy and you start explaining one unknown with another. The issues arise when you confuse ideas and constructs for consistently and unanimously observable facts.