Sonic inference to the best explanation: On listening otherly
1. Listening otherly
“The beliefs about sounds heard in the dark can always be wrong.” This assumption is one of the hypotheses taken for granted in the visual-centric theory of evidence, which adopts only visible things as true evidence. If we heard something eerie outside of the window last night, we would probably take a look to see if there was anything that caused the sound after the sun rises. Because I want to confirm that the spooky imagination we had about the sound was not true. You are relieved to know that it turned out to be a fricative sound of something that had nothing to do with eerieness.
Here I start from the very experience of hearing a sound incorrectly as another. And, I try to think about what such a misunderstanding in listening can do. To this end, the state in which one of several hypotheses to explain a single sonic event had to be selected was named ‘SIBE(Sonic inference to the best explanation)’. It seems that reasoning according to SIBE usually manifests itself as a belief in the plausibility of a certain state, that says to us 'in such and such circumstances, things will unfold in such and such a way.' What underpins this belief is subjective rationality. In a sense, subjective rationality sometimes causes the listener to hear one sound 'otherly', depending on the degree of the beliefs the listener already has. In this sense, belief about the misheard sound is often a result of a forced process generated from the muscle memory of the past, rather than optional; And here lies the crux of the potency of listening otherly: making the inconceivable the conceivable, by preimagining things that we would never want to imagine. Such an approach taken to the problem of listening allows us to find the driver of belief in testimony as a result of practical occasions. This helps us to move away from the usual approach of believing testimony as some kind of an act of ethical responsibility.
Now, let's rewrite the previous assumption as follows: 'Knowing by sound is not reliable-as if seeing something in the dark does not.' Just as we have to consider the possibility of a blue taxi looking green under the yellow gaslight when taking into account the testimony about a hit-and-run incident that happened at night, knowledge from sound always suffers from the remaining possibility of being listened otherwise.* In short, knowledge derived from listening has the potential of misrecognizing things, as if seeing in the dark, sometimes even worse. Because unlike what is seen, what is heard is not seen.
But even knowing by seeing is not always reliable. For perception often believes so strongly in the plausibility of a state that sometimes it denies what is really seen. Experiments in cognitive science and findings in behavioral economics expose how irrational human perception is, and further discover that such irrationality only manifests under certain circumstances. Misperceptions or biases such as seeing the same saturation differently under the belief that the color of the lighted side will always be brighter than the shaded area are as very much systematic as a rationally functioning perceptual process.
2. Systematic Irrationality
It is also possible to recontextualize systematic irrationality in a more positive, which is holistic, or in other words, a ‘human’ point of view. It is by examining the act of such perception, which automatically fills in empirical data in the place of absent information, as something that shows the potency of (human) imagination. It is impossible to cease seeing a specific figure from an abstract, random pattern made up of mere black and white, once you start seeing it. Even if the figure has been removed, still is the same. Although "we quickly realize that she has gone, [..] the expectation of her presence remains in her place. [..]an unsuppressable expectation even when we know it will go unfulfilled" still persists.**
It is at this point where the first concern of this writing emerges: seeing mistaken, or seeing what is not there, is influenced by beliefs and expectations on the given state that will probably unfold in such and such a manner. Then, what will be the impact of these 'automatic expectations' in listening? At first glance, just as the desire to see something makes you actually see it, the desire to hear something will probably make you hear the very sound. This is because like any sensory experience, listening otherly is also related to the expectations about the context of a sound coming into one's ear. This might be true in a general sense, but not in the same way that seeing wrongly does.
So, what is the difference between seeing otherly and hearing otherly? If the different hypotheses raised for a given state equally satisfy the given evidence, the priority of the hypotheses cannot be determined. This is sometimes referred to as the problem of hypothesis selection(theory determination).*** When visual misperceptions, such as optical illusions, are caused by an arrangement of optical data, and finally induce us to see in a particular way, our eyes do not suspect what we see until we “hear” that what we have seen was not what we thought it was. Nevertheless, as soon as we switch our mode of perspective, the duck in front of us can become a rabbit and vice versa. But listening otherly does not always proceed in this way. Rather, it seems to have more to do with the situation where I cannot dismiss my non-plausible hypothesis, or belief about sound even after I got to know that what I'm hearing is not what I think it is. Like the construction of subharmonics, beliefs about a sound occur simultaneously rather than transitioning from one side to the other.****