Moto man wrote,
"@geoffkait , I respectfully disagree. It’s not extrapolating one data point, which even then is subjective. It is discarding all of the nonsense reviews by "reviewers" and owners, and rely on tests that cannot be colored by preconceived expectations. I am not saying that all participants in a double-blind listen will have the same conclusion, but they should. So to me its not throwing out all of the other data as much as recognizing that some reviewer raving about how a record clamp makes all the difference in the world is BS. This data points should be discarded. Now, in a double-blind study, someone legitimately reached the same result, don’t you agree that that would have significantly more validity? Plus, the witches’ dunking chairs were supposed to be objectively verifiable tests. You float, you’re a witch. You sink, their bad. . . guess you weren’t a witch! Based on a faulty premise, sure, but still objectively verifiable. :)"
Something tells me the only ones who are hot to trot to conduct double blind tests are the ones who’ve already made their minds up, you know, the died in wool skeptics. Skeptics claim these outlandish audiophile gadgets can’t pass a double blind test but never do you see a skeptic actually conduct a double blind test. What’s up with that? Isn't that putting the cart before the goat?
Cheerios
"@geoffkait , I respectfully disagree. It’s not extrapolating one data point, which even then is subjective. It is discarding all of the nonsense reviews by "reviewers" and owners, and rely on tests that cannot be colored by preconceived expectations. I am not saying that all participants in a double-blind listen will have the same conclusion, but they should. So to me its not throwing out all of the other data as much as recognizing that some reviewer raving about how a record clamp makes all the difference in the world is BS. This data points should be discarded. Now, in a double-blind study, someone legitimately reached the same result, don’t you agree that that would have significantly more validity? Plus, the witches’ dunking chairs were supposed to be objectively verifiable tests. You float, you’re a witch. You sink, their bad. . . guess you weren’t a witch! Based on a faulty premise, sure, but still objectively verifiable. :)"
Something tells me the only ones who are hot to trot to conduct double blind tests are the ones who’ve already made their minds up, you know, the died in wool skeptics. Skeptics claim these outlandish audiophile gadgets can’t pass a double blind test but never do you see a skeptic actually conduct a double blind test. What’s up with that? Isn't that putting the cart before the goat?
Cheerios