Opinions - The Absolute Sound

hi jdoris:

truth without certainty seems contradictory.

simple answer:

it doesn't matter, one way or the other.

maybe they are entertaining, but they take up space.

of course, you can read it and then give it away.

point is , you can be a happy as a music listener and owner of stereo equipment, without reading magazines. just like you can buy a good car, without reading car magazines.

hi frogman:

knowledge has nothing to do with attitude.

the idea expressed that "absolute sound is a worthless rag" can not be proven. it is a matter of opinion.

for you to say that such a person doesn't know what he is talking about is technically correct, as such a statement is an opinion. however, your implication is a disparaging remark which is completely uncalled for.

this forum should not be a place for ad hominem attacks, although i assume that your comment was not intended that way.

it is unfortunate that words like "knowlege" have been used improperly according to the strict definition of the term.

there is very little knowledge expressed in posts on these forums. knowledge can only be established using mathematics and/or logic, both absent in your statement(s).

rather they are opinions and perceptions based upon (one hopes) personal experience.

surely we can disagree without being disagreeable.

i will admit that this discussion is out of proportion to the importance of the topic, however, i wish to comment upon my position of the inadmissibility of scientific knowledge..

any "theories" based upon observation cannot be proven mathematically.

such theories or as one would call them "empirically-based knowledge", are based upon inductive reasoning, which cannot be proven with certainty.

knowledge implies truth, implies certainty.

newton's theory of gravity is a stochastic phenomenon. there is some very small probability that some event in the future may contradict it, although, to date it has not happened.

this subject requires a semester of philosophy, so i will say no more.

i think i should have majored in philosophy and gone for a phd and then decided to teach.

empirical observations and so called empirical knowledge is based upon induction. so called empirical knowledge is usually synthetetic posteriori.

that is a collection of corroborating facts leads to knowledge of an evnt.

for example. the sun has risen evry day for a long time. i suupose you might say that one knows that the sun will shine the next day. such knowledge is based upon induction.

the problem with induction is that the exception disproves the rule, and it will take an infinite number of occurrences to rpove with certain (, i.e., to know) that something is true.

that which is considered knowledge must be true and provable.

mathematics or logic based upon the analytic a priori principle is necessary to establish knowledge.

therefore, empirical knowledge is an oxymoron. if a conclusion is based upon empirical observation it does not constitute knowledge.

knowledge is tautological.

that is given axioms, and definitions proofs are possible.

euclidian geometry is a fertile field from which analytical proofs are possible.

hi frogman:

i reread your post in which you commented on statements you believe are held by some cynical audiophiles. while i agree your statements are opinions. to suggest that that knowledge is relevant is something with which i don't agree.

accusing someone of not knowing what he/she is talking about is an ad hominem remark,in my opinion.

my comemnts did not insult you personally.

i would be willing to debate the principles of philosophy , knowledge and mathematics if you wish.

the appropriate context would be e mails or by phone.

the ball is in your court.

if you "know" something to be true you must be certain else, there is a probability of it being false.

regarding your example of the parked car, you don't know it is located at a particular spot, you have a recollection of where it is located.

secondly i believe that when you use your senses , no knowledge can be derived from it.

all knowledge is abstract.

for example, as silly as it sounds, you can say , i know i own a levenson amp, but you can't prove it using mathematics or logic, since it requires you to see the amp.

yes this approach is radical skepticism, but it is my concept.

i apologize for the discussion of what may be an arcane and irrelevant topic and perhaps boring some of the readers. my bad.