chemman
@geoffkait @cleeds
I’m unclear as to why you can’t engage in a bit of discourse without getting personal.
>>>>It is what it is. Glupson must get some satisfaction since he keeps responding to all of my posts. He even goes out of his way to interrupt or offer some advice or whatever. My guess? 🍑🍔🍔 That’s a joke in case you can’t tell.
@geoffkait What in goodness sake has glupson done to anyone to merit that sort of talk. Get some rest gentleman.
>>>>We already have a moderator. Thanks, anyway.
@prof
What I was attempting to get at, rather poorly it seems, is humans are notoriously unreliable test subjects. Because of human variability, it is extremely difficult to get adequate support to satisfy a hypothesis that ultimately results in a scientific "law," unlike something like Ohm’s Law which is pretty much a bedrock principle in electronics. We can point to failed medical studies and drug recalls. We can’t control human moods, blood pressure, sleep patterns, vascular anomalies, etc. All of that makes it less reliable than running the same test through a computer with Rightmark and testing for THD, frequency response, dynamic range etc.. Those are quantifiable numbers that speak to the transmission/reception of sound waves. "I liked this one better," can be added up along with it’s opposite number. You want to quantify that fine. That’s simply not good enough for me. Nor, is it very good science. On the other hand, some knowledge can be taken from it.
>>>>That looks like it should go in the Whatever file, your apparent expertise in most of the scientific disciplines notwithstanding. 😛
