|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.215.11.241
In Reply to: RE: Perhaps you all might agree with the conclusion more? posted by Axon on September 11, 2007 at 21:49:26
The root criticism is that a study was seemingly brought up out of thin air with a desired outcome, and then used as factual basis for the remaining article. (It also used subjective perception of just a few people, that is not unanimously agreed with, as factual basis.) The lack of references, controls, or data raised skepticism over whether such a project had actually taken place. Citing the seemingly-sacred belief that because it's an AES article, it's automatically truth and ought not be challenged.
Follow Ups:
Like your buddy Cheever?
The old "base your evidence on the conclusion" trick. Science at its best.
Quite so. Also remember, it's peer-reviewed , another sacred touchstone.
LOL! What does that say about the peers?
clark
By grinding it on the sacred stone of woe and anointing it with green ink and myrrh. All praise be to the Lord CJ. Amen.
cheers,
AJ
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
A peer-reviewed study or document is normally so air-tight in terms of references, data, and theory, it would be extremely difficult to find a hole that is permeable to challenge. This is what the peers are supposed to achieve.I personally think the AES's "peer reviews" were never so much peer reviews in the classic sense as much as mutual agreement amongst a circle of people with like thought. I've thought for a long time that many papers in the audio engineering field have utilized "token peers," whose concern was getting these papers submitted to establish a sense of authority amongst those within the circle, rather than maintain and advance sound design practices within the industry. This in time has also established a dogmatic belief system amongst audio designers (often with hushed dissent) and an "us versus them" mentality in regard to their consumer base.
Most of the questioning levied at the audio engineering establishment from the consumers should have been flagged by the peers themselves. But since the quest for "authority immune from challenge" has trumped the quest for sound practices, such burden for genuine review has shifted to the consumers. (Which has driven the belief system and "us versus them" mentality.) And in time, some amongst the consumers realize this. You and me amongst them.
Peer reviews are a lot more effective when the pool of reviewers is vast, the reviewers are otherwise independent in thinking (there is no fear in citing problems or rejecting the presentation), and there are elements in the study or document that are critical (often involving either human health or safety), which could come back to haunt the reviewers if they were later to be found to have let questionable statements or data evade their scrutiny.
the quest for authority overriding the quest for knowledge.
You have voiced my own inchoate objections most forcefully. You have written a classic!
Say, do you belong to them (as it were)?
clark
Did you ever get anything accepted through those lowly filters and get a piece published with them?Oh, you didn't even want to? Then why expend so much time and energy in trying to convince everyone in those circles at your own home domain of how very correct and deserving of broadest possible attention your "theses" were, and how blatantly wrong and mentally suspect those in any way critical of them had to be?
You even had your friends there as officers. They wouldn't have just gone ahead and brutally suppressed your "emerging paradigm," wouldn't you think?
TL
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: