3 ms·
> but not "the truth." And yet, in your opening paragraph, you described "the truth". "The truth" would be that a percentage of population complains about a ce
by azangru 6y ago
> but not "the truth."
And yet, in your opening paragraph, you described "the truth". "The truth" would be that a percentage of population complains about a certain sound while the remainder of the population doesn't. You might even be able to describe physical properties of that sound, such as the range of frequencies and the amplitude that produces discomfort in a given proportion of population. You might even be able to describe the characteristics of populations that respond to the sound differently (such as, I don't know, socioeconomic status for whatever reason). That would probably bring you as close to "the truth" as possible. Whether the sound in question is called "high-pitched" or not is irrelevant.
It irks me that subjective claims about the physical world are regarded as truth statements about the physical world, and thus my report that I hear a displeasing sound and your report that you don't hear that sound or don't find it displeasing somehow produces two "truths".
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoGet an audio sensor that covers the frequency range in question. It isn't rocket science, people. There is in fact "the truth", that is, what corresponds to actual reality, and it's completely independent of how many people say they hear the sound and how many do not. (Those are also "truths", but they are not "the truth".) Once you know whether the sound really exists as audio energy in the air, then you can tell the difference between "X% of people can't hear high frequencies" and "100-X% of people suffer from tinnitus or audio hallucinations".
- carapace 6y agoYou're being too literal. There are lots of "sounds" that have no objective correlates at all. What do we do with those [conflicting] subjective "truths" when there is no meter?
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoFirst, azangru was talking about "statements about the physical world". For that kind of statement, if there is no objective correlate, then you're kind of in a quantum "many worlds" vs. "collapse" situation. That is, people have opinions, but it produces no actual physical difference which one is true, and many people have concluded that the dispute is both unproveable and pointless. And if we're talking about something that isn't physical, I suggest that it's still the same. If there is no objective correlate, then... let people have their opinions, but don't label either side "truth".
- carapace 6y agoAh, you're right, azangru was being more literal than metaphorical, I didn't read carefully enough.