To my point, biases are not transferable, not in audio, not even in society, even if many share the same biases. There is no way of knowing. However, absolutes are transferable, and yes, there are absolutes.Head coinciding with the location of ass is called gymnastic not epistemology...
The important words in your sentences here is the beginning unconscious wording : " To my point.. "
which can be translated by : never mind the accepted meaning of " bias", for my agenda the meaning of "bias" is......
The problem is there exist a general definition of the word "bias"
I will use wikipedia definition:
«
Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.[2]»
Reading the citation i extracted from your post and the wiki general definition demonstrate clearly that you dont know what is a bias objectively... IT CAN BE "INNATE OR LEARNED"....Contrary to what you explicitly said.... And the 2 at the same time yes...
I will add to the uncomplete wiki definition that a bias could also be the 2 at the same times, innate AND learned in specific collective and cultural context....
You said that "biases" are not transferable nor learned but the general accepted definition says like i said myself all the times in all my posts here, to no avail, that they are...
Not surprizing that with 2 defiintion of the word "bias", a true one and a false one, the discussion is impossible with you...
The only absolute reality transferable for you is the objective reading of a number on a measuring dial...
Which is the fallacy of the measuring gear measuring itself without needing a brain to interpret it with his learned biases... Your notion of Science is like the the well known baron lifting itself by his own hairs...This is your "gymnastic"...You called this gymnastic science...I called it technocratic deception or superstition...
You reduced "bias" to the partial view of being something impeding with the lecture of your own measuring dial apparatus in digital engineering in ALL your posts...Timbre perception is an audiophile taste only, not a real complex concept in acoustic.... Imaging concept is reducible to physical design of speakers location, specific drivers types etc All that is erroneous and limited narrow views of these deep acoustical concepts...
Why is the word " bias" related to a " SYSTEMATIC error" in the general definition?
Because a bias is a concept primarily belonging to statistic methodology ....
Then using blind test and bias out of a statistical context to prove an agenda about what is real or not, what is subjective and objective or not, in an absolute sense, is an abuse of the scientific methodology...Especially when we called "bias" anything which impede with our own agenda...The confirming bias fallacy here :Blindtest ONLY confirm reality and all that exist really could be confirm to exist by blind test...
But you reduced from the beginning "bias" to the partial view of being anything impeding with the lecture of your own measuring dial apparatus in digital engineering...Then audiophiles unable to read and trust only these dials are deceived idiots...
The problem is your view of reality is simplistic if not childish, a technological fad and habit....
Guess who is deceived here, and worst, deceiving others?
