In Reply to: RE: Let me get this out of my system... posted by Christine Tham on March 1, 2010 at 03:08:32:
It wasn't "double blind" (which would imply neither the observer nor the experimenter knew what is being tested), and it wasn't ABX, simply AB, hence subject to all sorts of biases.
What is the procedural merit of an experimenter not knowing what he/she is doing?
I have to confess I'm not even sure (heck, probably haven't a clue) what an ABX test is and that reading up on the technique generally leaves me more confused than I was before I started. "AB vs ABX" strikes me as a phoney distinction between two equally suspect procedures.
I'd like to know the rationale for the apparent assumption that perceptible differences can be detected reliably using only one sampling procedure. What little I've read on the subject seems also to assume that subject populations and the like do not matter.
And so on - but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Let me get this out of my system... - Ryelands 04:12:48 03/01/10 (14)
- RE: Let me get this out of my system... - Roseval 11:09:22 03/01/10 (11)
- RE: Let me get this out of my system... - Ryelands 02:22:50 03/02/10 (2)
- RE: Let me get this out of my system... - Phelonious Ponk 07:43:19 03/02/10 (1)
- RE: Let me get this out of my system... - Ryelands 08:09:01 03/02/10 (0)
- Thanks - Christine Tham 01:33:21 03/02/10 (7)
- RE: Thanks - Ryelands 03:54:46 03/02/10 (6)
- RE: Thanks - Christine Tham 15:30:44 03/02/10 (5)
- RE: Thanks - Ryelands 04:14:22 03/03/10 (4)
- RE: Thanks - Christine Tham 10:16:33 03/03/10 (3)
- RE: Thanks - Tony Lauck 12:36:53 03/03/10 (2)
- Thanks Tony for the link to the paper (nt) - Christine Tham 14:26:50 03/03/10 (0)
- RE: Thanks - Ryelands 13:03:56 03/03/10 (0)
- RE: Let me get this out of my system... - Phelonious Ponk 05:58:06 03/01/10 (0)
- RE: Let me get this out of my system... - Phelonious Ponk 04:35:48 03/01/10 (0)