In Reply to: a tale of bias. The irony of the common held beliefs of many objectivists posted by Analog Scott on July 19, 2010 at 13:30:55:
Because that's what your post amounts to. Some inmates have made quite a career of attacking things they attribute to a group of people they call objectivists.
One big problem is that you simply present assertions you have alleged are made repeatedly, but provide no data, no criteria. You have your opinion, of course, but that's all it is. Where's your meta-analysis?
You then give a couple of URLs to discussions you seem to think of as examples. You show no sign of understanding the discussions very well and expect the rest of us to come to the same conclusions about them that you have, which is rather silly of you. Where's your own meta-analysis?
I read the HO thread down to where Arnie Krueger makes what seem to me to some perfectly technical objections to the procedure. Whatever his biases are, the objections he made about different sampling rates seem rational, and he knows much more about the subject than I do and I dare say than you do. He offered a rational explanation of why the results came out positive. Either refute his objections and show the test is valid, or, failing that, the only thing to do is run a better test.
If you don't like null results in some test, the only thing to do is either show the difference is in fact audible (JA did this recently here. JA sometimes whines about what ABX advocates say but he can also attempt some rational arguments.) or do a blind test that should be more sensitive. Whining about his alleged biases doesn't make the test any better.
As for the skeptics site, Tony Lauck has quite properly pointed out that if one doesn't know the field, one may not know what advance criteria should be set for a meta-analysis of the literature.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Ever hear of the argumentem ad hominem fallacy? - Pat D 14:59:47 07/21/10 (18)
- Funny that I predicted you would jump in and try to take this on some bizarre tangent. - Analog Scott 02:29:44 07/22/10 (14)
- You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - Pat D 05:11:28 07/22/10 (13)
- "What points are you *trying* to make?" - Analog Scott 12:49:19 07/22/10 (0)
- RE: You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - kerr 06:43:21 07/22/10 (11)
- actually there is a lot to be learned from 'each side." - Analog Scott 10:38:09 07/22/10 (1)
- Nice post - thanks. Well said (nt) - kerr 04:40:25 07/23/10 (0)
- RE: You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - Pat D 08:43:20 07/22/10 (7)
- RE: You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - Analog Scott 12:55:51 07/22/10 (6)
- RE: You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - Pat D 16:37:42 07/22/10 (5)
- *spits out a fine cup of coffee* - robert young 08:00:40 07/24/10 (4)
- That's priceless - E-Stat 08:07:58 07/24/10 (3)
- I keep wondering how many times I have to link this . . . - Pat D 11:40:24 07/24/10 (2)
- You have no idea why I'm laughing at you, do you? - robert young 13:05:32 07/24/10 (1)
- He doesn't get it, does he? -nt - E-Stat 16:10:08 07/24/10 (0)
- This is one of those cases when the process itself IS the goal - and... - carcass93 08:31:19 07/22/10 (0)
- Where's your meta-analysis? Better than that here is the meta-analyst - Don Till 20:37:05 07/21/10 (2)
- Is that a picture of Analog Scott? (nt) - Pat D 05:43:49 07/22/10 (1)
- Is your question what passes as humor? - carcass93 11:18:14 07/22/10 (0)