Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

I am not against the value of Amir measures...

I thank him remember ?

I am against his way of interpretating them and imposing them as all there is to say about hearing qualities in audio...

I like chocolate. I know cocoa beans. 

@nonoise 

My point is many espouse personal freedom but only for themselves.  
 

Also it’s not a good thing when science  becomes the enemy.  
 

@amir_asr Yes I am AJ. How did you know?

It was pretty easy.  You use the same letters of alphabet when writing.

The best way to fool ourself is when we want TO WIN A POINT in a discussion or in an experiment AT ALL COST..

Why ? because the discussion or the experiment could be based on an entire set of biases or hypothesis that are false... Then the experiment protocol can even be perfect and without any defect in his protocol and can even give more truthful and proven results reinforcing the faulty biases or hypothesis or the discussed point...

It is classical case with the faulty hypothesis of the Ptolemaic epicycles which were more predictively precise than Copernic own computation on the basis of his theory at the times...

Then here you have, epicycles, a perfect clear concept, which is computable and useful for computations, perfect experiment, perfect protocol of observation validated by more and more precise measure from observation and to go on with new observations, simple we add new epicycles to represent exactly and perfectly the more precise observations.. ... A winner game no ? 😊

But a completely false hypothesis about the center of the solar system... With his less well measured results it is Copernic who will win , time will defeat the exact epicycles by Ockham razor and improving application to measures and simplifying them making now more easy the observation with the Copernician hypothesis..

Do you catch why Feyman think as i described not as you simplify it grossly for your needs and to win an argument in this discussion ? You must read philosophy of science, if you dont you  will even be able  to set experimental protocol right but you risk to go more deeply in a false PARADIGM ( it is easy to search for many examples in the medical field and in psycho-acoustic history) ... Read not only Popper about falsification , read Kuhn about paradigm change and better, read Feyerabend book "AGAINST METHOD " and his RADICAL discussion with Imre Lakatos..

This is the same with Amir Ptolemaic measuring delusion imposed as the only basis for ascribing hearing qualitites to an audio system...He confirm his own bias or hypothesis more and more with electrical new and better measures which are not EVEN WRONG...

It is not the electrical measures- Earth but the Ears/brain psycho-acoustic- SUN the center of the acoustic- solar system... Those using electrical measures are BESIDE the essential psycho-acoustic point, and they cannot describe what is "listening" and,

what do we listen to when listening to a sound and how ?

Electrical Fourier analysis is not PSYCHO ACOUSTIC science...Only a part of it...

No. If you are going to comment on a "too long post" maybe read it first. Did you even see what I wrote about how the Opera experiment scenario exemplified much of Feynman’s advice? It’s much richer than just "blind experiment."

I’m not running experiments on fundamental physics. But as I said, when it comes to my own tests and I want to be more cautious, I adopt methods that align with Feynman’s cautions about "fooling yourself" (and like I showed, presenting my method and data to others for critique).

You either can’t admit how this fits well with Feynman’s words...or you just don’t understand Feynman (or the scientific method).

You keep talking about big theories, and how some biases are bad some good, but show NO instances where you have taken Feynman’s advice in terms of your method - that is the steps you took in your steps to ensure you weren’t fooling yourself.