|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
142.162.48.84
In Reply to: RE: Scientific method? posted by mkuller on December 07, 2014 at 12:16:37
Are you seriously saying that one cannot perform scientific tests on an individual basis? GMAB
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Follow Ups:
"Are you seriously saying that one cannot perform scientific tests on an individual basis? GMAB"
The answer to your question differs according to the definition of "scientific".
Science is a method, Science is a social activity. Science is the established religion of many countries ("scientific materialism").
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
...sure - that only apply to that individual and are not very scientific.
It doesn't have to be, or probably isn't, "science" just to control your own expectation bias.
If it's real science, though, let's see you get one of those published in a scientific journal.
Nonsense. Scientific tests are done very often on individuals. Just some examples. Police can examine the DNA of a person and compare it with DNA left in a crime scene or otherwise connected with a crime. Doctors can have lab tests done on patients' blood samples and find all sorts of things.
Or, people can do audio DBTs to see if they can detect the so-called "sonic signature" of an amp and numerous other things.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
..the first two examples are actual science since they've been validated - proven to provide valid results and aren't influenced by the subject.Your personal DBT may give you different results at different times during the day, depending on your mood, whether you have water in your ears, tinnitis, different ancillary equipment used, etc.
Not well controlled or very scientific, but a technique some find useful.
Edits: 12/09/14
"Your personal DBT may give you different results at different times during the day, depending on your mood, whether you have water in your ears, tinnitis, different ancillary equipment used, etc."
That, of course, goes in spades for subjective auditioning or any kind of listening. Reviewers are not immune.
"Not well controlled or very scientific, but a technique some find useful."
You have not established that personal DBTs cannot be scientific.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
> That, of course, goes in spades for subjective auditioning or any kind of listening. Reviewers are not immune.>
Straw horse.
> You have not established that personal DBTs cannot be scientific.>
Until you show a method for controlling all of the variables, including the ones I mentioned above, you have not shown how it is scientifically valid.
"Your personal DBT may give you different results at different times during the day, depending on your mood, whether you have water in your ears, tinnitis, different ancillary equipment used, etc."
If one can establish one hears a difference under the conditions of the audition, than that is established with some degree of probability. Pointing out that sighted auditions are affected by even more things is hardly a straw man.
Merely getting positive results on DBTs does not necessarily indicate just what the differences heard are.
How would you establish that all conditions are controlled in any test? How do you know something was not missed? You can't be absolutely certain of that. You can only remove known variables, and finding things that affect the results is part of science.
If you use different ancillary equipment, that would be a different test because another variable has been introduced.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: