Are you a Verificationist about audio?

the problem with the distinction raised in the thread is that corroboration or verification is not proof.

thus the verificatopn of a perception does not mean that that which is verified is true.

subjects of a subjective nature , like audio, genereate opinions. most statements regharding audio topics are opinions which cannot be verified as to their certainty.

proff is analytic and deductive, induction cannot be used for proving anything.

the senses cannot be a basis for proof.

i would appreciate a statement which can be verified.

regarding measurement, if you have instruments measuring certain paramaters, there may be others which , at the time, cannot be measured.

hence it is my hypothesis that statements in the realm of audio can only be verified if they follow the laws of logic and mathenatics. i guess that makes me a non-verificationist because i believe in the main, that verification is not feasible.

byron:

you are accurate in your assessment of my skepticism.

i do repeat the argument you encapsulated so well in a syllogism, because , it has not been definitively refuted.

in addition, there are many topics, or threads, to which skepticism applies.

some of the issues that are raised as threads, are rhetorical, and, like most philosophical arguments, do not have a definitive conclusion.

the question connoted in the thread

"are you a verificationist ?"

begs the question of a definitive method of verification.

if you are trying to verify a perception, it seems that there is no way to do it which yields certainty of results.

the world is a stochastic environment, where probability rules. so, you can not be sure, or, certain that you have verified something. there is always some probability of misperception when you attempt to coroborate, or even replicate someone's perception.

let me try to escape from the paradox, byron, which you stated in a syloogism.

i make the assumption that only that which is either true or false is subject to proof.

statements of an analytic-apriori nature fall within the set of that which can be proven.

for example, in euclidian geometry, one can prove base angles of an isoceles triangle are equal. the proof does not involve the senses.

when you perceive, the result has some probability of being true and a probability of being false. thus perceptions cannot be proven true or false.

in the empirical world (experience) absolute proof is not possible.

in the world of the abstract, it is possible.

there are many other examples in trigonometry, boolean algebra, calculus, num,ber theory, which are subject to proof.

the problem with preception is that one can never say the perception is true, with certainty.

one may have confidence in one's perceptions and act on them, but one can never be sure that one's perceptions are true.

confirmation by others, if the sample is large, can lead to confidence, but not truth.

sorry about a typo, byron:

you made an assumption perhaps that the spelling of your first name was not an unintended error, and it seemed a personal affront on your part. i was writing fast and made a mistake.

i hope you can allow for the fact that i realize there is a difference between byron and bryon.

i will end my comments by referring to your comment about truth.

in no way is truth a correspondence to reality. in the empirical world truth would ensue by use of the senses. let's not go any further.

you have been very clear about your position, and given this forum, nothing more has to be said.

obviously, you may have the last word if you so desire.

i don't want to continue this philosophical discussion here i think enough has been said.

by the way didn't a famous english playwright have something to say about a name ?

i thought that the discussion had ended.

i did not think an explanation was necessary.

however. you deserve one because you have invested time and effort and i owe you an explanation here it is.

that which accrues from senses is probably true and probably

and probably false. what can you conclude from that which has some probability of being true and false.

i hope i have provided an explanation as to why the senses are not reliable.

i believe dogmatic is not an apt descripton of my argument.

i hope this ends the discussion.

let me sum up what has transpired:

1) i am a radical skeptic

2)i am guilty of incorrectly spelling your name

3)i believe the senses are unreliable

4) the question of verification ,as it applies to audio matters is immaterial.