[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
75.215.100.95
In Reply to: RE: "The... sacred belief that because it's an AES article, it's automatically truth and ought not be challenged." posted by clarkjohnsen on September 12, 2007 at 09:35:51
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
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]