For Your Edification and Enjoyment re "Burn In", etc.

Biases are pervasive in all experiments and science fields, that does not invalidate experiments.... The truth is that without biases there will not exist any experiment only robots... Experiment are born in the mind of a scientist with his own conclusions and biases, his own humanity so to speak... There is no problem with that....

It is the "repeatability" that characterise empirical science not the erasing of biases "per se", except in the "skeptic club" ....Some biases are right being conscious, others are wrong being habits or unconscious... Biases must be controlled not erased....Self controls of our own prejudices is necessary but erasing them completely is futile and impossible anyway...

Collective consensus in science is in relation with repeatable experiments...Not necessarily  a blind test....😁

Biases are like moles and  blind spots, you dont want to erase them all at all cost it is impossible for some but you want to be conscious of them or make them conscious  in the course of the experiment itself....




Peer reviewing is another matter i will not discuss related also to big problems of his own...It is also a way to social corporate control of science in some aspect and is not always positive.... Look now where many scientific publish all their results on the net to keep their freedom and go away from dictatorial institutions...

I think I've posted this before but , from Science Daily

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. "Empirical" means "based on observation or experience," according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.

Before any pieces of empirical data are collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

In a scientific sense "empirical evidence" doesn't mean I oberserved a UFO therefore there is life on other planets and they're visiting earth. 

Show me what technical apparatus Stradivarius used in building violins other than his ears and we might be getting somewhere on this....Acoustics is a multidimensional, inexact science, that’s why concert halls are built by masters using lots of technology AND their ears. Any half decent sound engineer will tell you the same.

Show me what technical apparatus Stradivarius used in building violins other than his ears and we might be getting somewhere on this....Acoustics is a multidimensional, inexact science, that’s why concert halls are built by masters using lots of technology AND their ears. Any half decent sound engineer will tell you the same.

Acoustic is at the exact crossroads of many sciences and your post is right on the target...

Ears are mandatory in this science and object of study and tools at the same time...

This is why acoustic is very complex and the last book i begin to read about "timbre" concepts appeal to more than a dozen fields...

Timbre Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition by Kai Siedenburg, Charalampos Saitis, Stephen McAdams, Arthur N. Popper, Richard R. Fay


Only "skeptic club" sunday scientist think otherwise...

I even read by one audiophile  "professional" skeptic here that we must not trust our own ears in any time.... It is very comical and tragic also to read this amount of insanity....He think an equalizer suffice to controls a room acoustic...This is pure market conditioning... You dont construct a house with one tool.... Better many tools especially the main tool : the ears...