In Reply to: Re: Not certain what you mean posted by Phil Tower on November 16, 2002 at 06:25:14:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that any discussion of DBTs that doesn't focus primarily on specific DBTs and methodology is pretty much a waste of time. And I'll go even further and say that, again solely in my opinion, the discussion should focus primarily on professionally run DBTs, because most of us probably won't run them in our homes, and even if we do, we in all liklihood won't run them in a manner that will produce meaningful results.These meaningul results might appear in some publication (perhaps the audiophile equivalent of Consumer Reports) discussing the metodology used in testing and the benefits of the product to the user?
The way I see it nature is under no obligation to make itself verifiable.
Of course it's not, but we're talking about our perceptions of nature, not nature itself, and the point is our perceptions of nature should be verifiable. Given sufficient knowledge and research, it seems to me, we should be able to isolate the source of any perception.
And by isolating the source of any perception, could one assume that the results might offer either X or Y as valid? (Assuming X and Y have different properties.)
(I'm not trying to be either flippant or argumentative by asking these two questions.)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Not certain what you mean - sgb 08:16:11 11/16/02 (1)
- Re: Not certain what you mean - Phil Tower 10:53:43 11/16/02 (0)