The physics of a vinyl record...

[Iwannaplato]

I find this to be quite fascinating...

Even though the image is highly magnified, it doesn't show the incredibly nuanced shapes engraved in the tracks. I don't have any categorical objection to intuiting that something is going on behind the scenes that goes beyond what science knows of or even potentially can know of. I have a number of beliefs that probably fall into that category. I just don't think this is an example of that. I think we see the magnification and on some level the complexity of the groove doesn't seem to match the complexity of the music, but if were went in there with something more along the lines of an electron microscope (or if that was one, at a magnitude several orders up), we'd find a matching complexity.

An electron microscope is indeed what was used to create the image in the gif.

And yes, it probably could have zoomed-in further to explicate even greater detail, but that still wouldn't make it any less fascinating when it comes to what we are hearing...

(perhaps dozens of uniquely toned [and separately distinguishable] instruments all playing simultaneously)

...as we watch that tiny spike of diamond, skittle through those jagged grooves.
_______

It is fascinating. My reaction, also intuitive, is that it doesn't show some kind of process beyond the explanation presented.

[Iwannaplato]

Well it matters if the paradigm being referred to is that of the casual observer or a expert in the field.

It certainly can. But then sometimes experts in the field are not experts in something relevant. Like medical experts may not be experts in the politics of the FDA. So, they calmly assert that medications are chosen via the scientific method. I think there can be subtler paradimatic misses, where experts dismiss things precisely because of the domination of certain ways of thinking. Sorting this out is not easy, I think. In the scientific community up into the early 70s it was near taboo to consider animals as having intentions, experiencing, emotions, etc. Somehow the biological sciences managed to be inheritors of Descartes or perhaps it was in part some species hubris ironically coming out of Christianity. In any case thousands of years after indigneous groups and at least some animal trainers and farmers and certainly pet owners were sure that animals had a subjective internal life, it was a taboo in science. Those people would not have been wrong to have viewed the scientists as paradimatically confused and setting an incorrect default position, though many of these people were not considered experts by anyone - perhaps some of the animal trainers were, but in the acadmice world their understanding would not have been seen as the proper expertise to outweigh that of a scientist in the appropriate field. I have sometimes wondered if it was the arrival of more women biologists that broke that habit.

None of this means that the layperson's position should always be considered on par with the experts. I just don't think that experts always or even usually have some kind of objective look at their own paradigms. They may be quite naive philosophicallly, unless that's their field and perhaps even then, for example.

And none of the above means that experts are superfluous.
But I think people who are saavy generalists or have specific life experiences can often know more about key things that many or even most experts are not aware of or can't see (are even sometimes blocked from seeing). And of course minority position experts may be part of the positions and information that lay people have.

Which all means to me that the situation is very complex and not easy and I think many people would prefer to avoid noticing this.

I'd also like to raise the issue of communal knowledge. Often a layperson or minority position expert may not be able to demonstrate to others that their position is correct. It may well be true, despite this, that their position is quite rational given their own experiences and lay expertise or generalist skills.

Often when this type of issue is raised it is as if a layperson who cannot prove their position to others must be irrational. You can't demonstrate this to others, so therefore 1) any rational person should disagree with you and 2) you are beling irrational for believing it. But given their experiences and/or knowledge of and around the paradigm of the experts, they may well be being perfectly rational. We can't always demonstrate what he have strong justification for believing is true. The community around that person may well be rational when opting not to take on their position without further justification, but doesn't mean that person is, by category, in error.

Agnosticism by the community is always an option.