Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

RE: What is well established in all other areas of science is the wildly variable influence of of subjective facto

>> Certainly you grossly overstate this. I am sure physicists, biologists,
>> chemists, etc. can ignore "subjective" factors.

You positive about this? From an article on blind testing: "Modern nuclear physics and particle physics experiments often involve large numbers of data analysts working together to extract quantitative data from complex datasets. In particular, the analysts want to report accurate systematic error estimates for all of their measurements; this is difficult or impossible if one of the errors is observer bias. To remove this bias, the experimenters devise blind analysis techniques, where the experimental result is hidden from the analysts until they've agreed—based on properties of the data set other than the final value—that the analysis techniques are fixed. One example of a blind analysis occurs in neutrino experiments, like the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, where the experimenters wish to report the total number N of neutrinos seen. The experimenters have preexisting expectations about what this number should be, and these expectations must not be allowed to bias the analysis. Therefore, the experimenters are allowed to see an unknown fraction f of the dataset."

Here we have an up front admission by nuclear physicists that they need to control for subjective bias. So, yes, if one is doing research, there is a need to control for subjective factors even in the "hard" sciences.

>> Most of the criticism of most of the psychological testing using 30
>> sec. same or different methods are criticized as "invalid" measurement
>> of the concept. Peer review normally deals with such problems, but if
>> you dominate one journal and have only subscribers review, that
>> safeguard is defeated. If the results are always that no one can hear
>> the differences, the methodology is faulty.

Faulty or imperfect methodology is not an excuse to abandon efforts at improving. "Gee, this is hard, let's not try anymore" is not a particularly compelling reason to embrace subjective feel-good impressions as the answer to basic research protocol.

>> Finally, most people reading a review are seeking vicarious impressions
>> of the reviewer.

I didn't say a single word about reviews or reviewers, nor the use of blind testing as a basis for consumer purchases. I happen to enjoy reading reviews but I don't treat them as science. I also did not pick out the components of my system with blind testing. I bought those items I liked.

While I'm not a particularly voluminous poster, if you look back at what I have said on this subject, I'm all for people buying what they like for whatever reason pleases them.

However, if one is doing fundamental research as respects the nature of human hearing, thresholds of audibility and various aspects of equipment design, then one does need to have some basic controls in place to help reduce the impact of subconscious influences.

I simply find it odd that some people have a hard time saying "I like this" without feeling compelled to justify their preference as some type of scientifically based choice.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  McShane Design  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.