Are you a Verificationist about audio?

Ah Bryon, another great question pondering the imponderables, so to speak, since consensus would appear to be difficult but in the end worth the endeavor.

I would consider myself a 'verificationist' in as much as I put my trust in things not to blow up, short out, or commit some other kind of catastrophic failure upon turn on. Thank goodness for UL. Beyond that, I'm content to try things that my own, lying ears perceive to be for the better in my musical appreciation regardless of whether or not it has been thoroughly vetted to the satisfaction (if attainable at all) of any cadre of rejectionists, no matter how adamantly they insist and semantically twisted they present their arguments.

Granted, there is a limit to what is doable, attainable and repeatable that would beg human ken to adopt as conventional wisdom. If it neither breaks my legs or picks my pocket then what is all the fuss about when sharing what one thinks to be an improvement with others?

I've gotten beyond that some time ago but do enjoy the thrust and perry of the truly talented out there (you know who you are) as they lay out a rational and reasonable argument that we don't know everything yet and to simply trust our ears as to what works and reverse engineer the point, or possibilities.

All the best,
Nonoise

Skepticism as a contrivance to further an argument can only lead one to doubt the sincerity of the skeptic.

I trust that's not the case else this wouldn't qualify as academic, let alone philosophical, but simply rhetorical.

All the best,
Nonoise

Tholt,

I was referring to MrT's point of view which I simply don't share.

Parry, thrust, point.

Bryon, after a while, and fashion, you'll be able to do this blindfolded.

It's almost unfair.

Absolute certainty is no assurance of what is. There is an old saw in medicine that goes something like this:
"No patient is in real danger until all his doctors agree on his diagnosis."

Consensus begs to be knocked over. Whether arrived at mathematically, empirically, or through happenstance, conclusions are not entirely definitive.

Granted, there are constants in life, evidenced by math, direct observation and blind luck, that will never change. Not everything is, though.

Every now and then something pops up to challenge or mystify (depending on strength of belief and conviction) the status quo and I, for one, welcome those little inconveniences.

All the best,
Nonoise

This will sound clumsy so bear with me as I have to come down a rung or two on the ladder of abstraction in order to relate.

So the Popperian perspective as it pertains to corroboration is simply to understand that corroboration is generally all that is needed to determine a consensus necessary to arrive at an agreeable, though not necessarily definitive conclusion?

A conclusion adequate enough to allow further investigation and development knowing that what has preceded isn't necessarily definitive but convincing enough to rely on until disproven, dispelled, or modified at a later date?

A most progressive (dare I say, liberal) way of thinking that allows for variance and an amount of randomness since nothing is absolute.

Certainty is not what it denotes: more a goal than an end point.

All the best,
Nonoise

Bryon,

Thanks for the clarification. As usual, you've opened more doors than I thought possible. It's nice to have to think things through, again.

Oh, and what Learsfool says, +1

All the best,
Nonoise

1) We are all something.

2) So sayeth the shephard, so sayeth the flock.

3) Only to a point, else we'd have incredibly short life spans.

4) Verification, being a process, will narrow down a particular. To dismiss it, see
Method of Assertion.

This was meant as humor only.
Boy, this is a hard room.
Is it getting hot in here?

All the best,
Nonoise