Getting in trouble

Prev Next

The 'prove it to me' crowd often gain confidence in their world view of superiority over subjectivists when the latter uses speculation to support their findings, rather than hard facts. It happens a lot.

For example, take the differences we hear in cables. I can't think of a more controversial sonic observation than directionality; the idea that wire sounds different in one direction than the other. This especially riles up the folks on the prove-it-to-me side, as to them it makes no engineering sense. We are sending, after all, an AC signal that travels back and forth along a conductor.

We get in trouble with explanations when the 'proof' we offer is speculative (it isn't always).

I have heard some convincing theories as to why wire directionality might be right. I have also heard a lot of inaccurate speculation. The answer to the wire riddle is not germane to this post.

We understand there's little hope of swaying either side towards the center. We hear what we hear, we believe what we believe.

Here's the thing. Most of the time we're not actively seeking evidence to change our minds. Rather, we seek confirmation of what we believe.

Which means that in many cases, even hard facts won't sway disbelievers.

But. Some observations are so obvious we don't require an explanation.

If you stumble and fall it hurts regardless of your belief or understanding of gravity.

Back to blog
Paul McGowan

Founder & CEO

Never miss a post


Related Posts

1 of 2