Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: It isn't just the "nedical gold standard. It's the scientific gold standard

Posted by Analog Scott on November 25, 2016 at 17:25:45:
"The main problem with blind tests is this: negative results mean nothing."

First of all, there is no such thing as negative or positive results. There are simply results. The we can apply a statistical analysis to those results to get probabilities of what was and was not being detected by the testee in that particular test.

"You cannot generalize and say this device doesn't work. In that regard blind test is jus lie any test.."

A propper analysis of a single dbt abx test will not offer such a conclusion. Were someone to draw such a conclusion from a dbt they would be making a poor analysis of the results. But making a poor analysis of the results does not make a dbt just like any test.