4 ms·

> You don't mention any of these possible causes though. I did not, but I was responding to your "The reality is that yes, cassettes really were responsible" wh

by fipar 3y ago

> You don't mention any of these possible causes though. I did not, but I was responding to your "The reality is that yes, cassettes really were responsible" which to me reads like a statement of fact and not one of possible cause. The fact remains that the graph you shared does not proof cassettes were responsible for that. Another possibility is that music revenue around that 1976 peak shown in your graph is due to wider reasons (e.g., '74 and '75 had negative GDP growth, then positive for a few years, then negative in '80 and '82 with a positive '81, that actually matches the revenue graph to some extent, so I don't think it's an established fact that cassettes were the cause for this. As a disclaimer though, I'll admit my opinion is tainted by the fact that the record companies were pushing that 'cassettes are killing music' agenda, which I disagree with, so I'm certainly biased in my views.

cubefox 3y ago
> I did not, but I was responding to your "The reality is that yes, cassettes really were responsible" which to me reads like a statement of fact and not one of possible cause. The fact remains that the graph you shared does not proof cassettes were responsible for that. It's an inference to the best explanation: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ No empirical evidence conclusively proves its true explanation, but the best available explanation is the most likely correct one. > Another possibility is that music revenue around that 1976 peak shown in your graph is due to wider reasons (e.g., '74 and '75 had negative GDP growth, then positive for a few years, then negative in '80 and '82 with a positive '81, that actually matches the revenue graph to some extent, so I don't think it's an established fact that cassettes were the cause for this. But that seems a much less likely explanation. The GDP remained pretty steady during that time: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-gross-domestic-product https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-... Nothing there is indicating that the music market would suddenly contract by 30%.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  > It's an inference to the best explanation: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ No empirical evidence conclusively proves its true explanation, but the best available explanation is the most likely correct one. This is gibberish, dude. If we don't know, let's admit we don't know. "the best available explanation is the most likely correct one" is not even close to reality.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    > This is gibberish, dude. If we don't know, let's admit we don't know. "the best available explanation is the most likely correct one" is not even close to reality. By this standard you don't know anything, since you can never rule out (bad) alternative explanations with certainty.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > It's an inference to the best explanation You've not provided that explanation. You're telling us it's the best explanation but you haven't explained it or given any argument for why it's the best -- other than because it's what you've said is the best.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    If you have a better explanation, why you don't just provide it to us? That's like saying to a scientist: I don't believe your explanation is the best we have, but won't provide a better one myself. Very easy.
    - fipar 3y ago
      That’s not how it works though, a scientist needs supporting evidence for their explanation before the null hypothesis can be ruled out. You seem to have your mind set on an explanation while other people aren’t seeing the evidence you’re seeing to support it.
- fipar 3y ago
  >> It's an inference to the best explanation: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ No empirical evidence conclusively proves its true explanation, but the best available explanation is the most likely correct one. I don’t think that link implies what you think it does. It discusses abduction as a way to justify a hypothesis, you still need to test it. I’m not arguing your hypothesis is wrong, I’m just arguing I think you’re wrong in treating it as a fact (“the reality is yes …”). You could have said “the reality is cassettes could have … “ and that would be true.
ghaff 3y ago
As someone in college in the late 70s we did a ton of taping each others’ vinyl onto cassette and pretty no one I knew actually bought prerecorded cassettes unless that was the only medium available. Of course, as with software, not every cassette copy represented a lost vinyl album sale but copying in places like colleges was very widespread.

by fipar 3y ago

cubefox 3y ago

> I did not, but I was responding to your "The reality is that yes, cassettes really were responsible" which to me reads like a statement of fact and not one of possible cause. The fact remains that the graph you shared does not proof cassettes were responsible for that. It's an inference to the best explanation: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ No empirical evidence conclusively proves its true explanation, but the best available explanation is the most likely correct one. > Another possibility is that music revenue around that 1976 peak shown in your graph is due to wider reasons (e.g., '74 and '75 had negative GDP growth, then positive for a few years, then negative in '80 and '82 with a positive '81, that actually matches the revenue graph to some extent, so I don't think it's an established fact that cassettes were the cause for this. But that seems a much less likely explanation. The GDP remained pretty steady during that time: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-gross-domestic-product https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-... Nothing there is indicating that the music market would suddenly contract by 30%.

KerrAvon 3y ago
> It's an inference to the best explanation: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ No empirical evidence conclusively proves its true explanation, but the best available explanation is the most likely correct one. This is gibberish, dude. If we don't know, let's admit we don't know. "the best available explanation is the most likely correct one" is not even close to reality.
- cubefox 3y ago
  > This is gibberish, dude. If we don't know, let's admit we don't know. "the best available explanation is the most likely correct one" is not even close to reality. By this standard you don't know anything, since you can never rule out (bad) alternative explanations with certainty.
brightlancer 3y ago
> It's an inference to the best explanation You've not provided that explanation. You're telling us it's the best explanation but you haven't explained it or given any argument for why it's the best -- other than because it's what you've said is the best.
- cubefox 3y ago
  If you have a better explanation, why you don't just provide it to us? That's like saying to a scientist: I don't believe your explanation is the best we have, but won't provide a better one myself. Very easy.
  - fipar 3y ago
    That’s not how it works though, a scientist needs supporting evidence for their explanation before the null hypothesis can be ruled out. You seem to have your mind set on an explanation while other people aren’t seeing the evidence you’re seeing to support it.
fipar 3y ago
>> It's an inference to the best explanation: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ No empirical evidence conclusively proves its true explanation, but the best available explanation is the most likely correct one. I don’t think that link implies what you think it does. It discusses abduction as a way to justify a hypothesis, you still need to test it. I’m not arguing your hypothesis is wrong, I’m just arguing I think you’re wrong in treating it as a fact (“the reality is yes …”). You could have said “the reality is cassettes could have … “ and that would be true.

ghaff 3y ago

As someone in college in the late 70s we did a ton of taping each others’ vinyl onto cassette and pretty no one I knew actually bought prerecorded cassettes unless that was the only medium available. Of course, as with software, not every cassette copy represented a lost vinyl album sale but copying in places like colleges was very widespread.