Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Critic's Corner

Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science"

84.190.125.203

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

In Reply to: Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" posted by John Atkinson on April 28, 2006 at 08:29:40:

Disagreeing with this statement (I agree that Ben Goldacre is most certainly disagreeing with you):
"But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-
fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to
identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are
somehow intrinsically flawed."
does not mean this:
"But Mr. Goldacre appears to be making the na�ve assumption that
the mere fact that a test is blind inherently�his word was
intrinsically�confers legitimacy on the test and its results. That
assumption, I suggest, is 'bad science'�even voodoo."
Disagreeing with an assertion that blind trials are intrinsically floored does not mean agreeing with an assertion that all blind trials and their results are legitimate. As far as I can see, this is not stated, implied or hinted at anywhere else in the article either.

Follow Ups:

Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - bjh 12:55:26 04/28/06 (18)
Well OK, but let's be completely fair then shall we? Goldacre says:
"But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners toidentify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are somehow intrinsically flawed."
Is that a fair representation of what JA wrote? Let's examine. Here the extract from Goldacre's article where he quotes JA.
---
I give you the editor of Stereophile, a respected hi-fi magazine of 33 years standing. He's talking about blinded tests on amplifiers: "It seems," he says, "that with such blind listening tests, all perceived subjective differences ... fall away ... when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions ..." Now I'm getting worried. Here comes the money shot. "... then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences." Ouch. "Having taken part in quite a number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in this hypothesis." What voodoo is this? If there is a difference to be heard, then you will hear it.
---
Does JA state that blind tests are "intrinsically flawed"? True he says that " ... perceived subjective differences ... fall away ...", but that's not the same thing.
Moreover it is clear that JA has provided further clarification of his remarks in the original article, clarification that Goldacre conveniently ignored. JA is explicit on this critical point when he says:
"I guess Mr. Goldacre hadn't read the rest of the 1989 essay from which he had quoted. I was writing about the listening tests I had organized at that year's Stereophile Show. I had taken two highly regarded amplifiers that were widely felt to sound different in normal listening, a solid-state Adcom GFA-555 and a pair of tubed VTL 300W monoblocks, and was trying to determine if they also sounded different in a blind test. The results were inconclusive, though a subsequent series of blind listening tests performed under optimum circumstances did result in statistically significant identification of the amplifiers. "
Thus to recap, when Goldacre said:
"But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are somehow intrinsically flawed."
he clearly misrepresented what JA said. I suppose you could argue, and little doubt you will, that in not explicitly making reference to JA in the statement that the assertion is unsupported, but to do so would be simple intellectual dishonesty!, after all he has explicitly used JA ("I give you the editor of Stereophile...") to create the "striking parallel" between the "hi-fi community" and other domains (e.g. Goldacre's "alternative therapy fans" for one).
Hence we may now add misrepresentation to go along with sloppiness in describing Goldacre's article.
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - andy19191 15:08:39 04/28/06 (13)
  > "But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-fi
  > community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners toidentify a
  > cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are somehow
  > intrinsically flawed."
  > Is that a fair representation of what JA wrote?
  It is not referring to what John wrote. It clearly states it is a widespread notion in the hi-fi community. A brief perusal of this forum would soon establish whether it is representative.
  > Does JA state that blind tests are "intrinsically flawed"?
  Yes. He states that he believes the hypothesis "that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences."
  > Hence we may now add misrepresentation to go along with sloppiness in
  > describing Goldacre's article.
  Where is the misrepresentation? He provides quotes which John neither disputes nor, apparently, has come to regret with the passing of time.
  I must admit to not fully understanding the purpose of your assertions since you are also providing the quotes so that even a casual reader can see they are false. There is much about audiophile thought processes that still baffle me. What enables you to read the sentence at the top of this posting, understand what it says (your last paragraph shows this) and then simply change its meaning to something you would prefer to have been written?
  - Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - bjh 17:37:35 04/28/06 (12)
    Just another I-Child. Sad! Especially as you are showing signs of actually being slower than the other ... something I would have thought impossible! LOL
    - JA made a fairly elementary logical error, bjh. - Pat D 17:52:09 04/28/06 (11)
      No question about it. Just because Mr. Goldacre thinks sighted auditions are unreliable doesn't equate to his believing every blind test is good.
      "If not-P then not-Q" does not imply "If P then Q."
      ____________________________________________________________
      "Nature loves to hide."
      ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
      - Pat, - bjh 20:14:44 04/28/06 (10)
        
        In Reply to: JA made a fairly elementary logical error, bjh. posted by Pat D on April 28, 2006 at 17:52:09:
        
        my dear poor I-Child, when I said "Well OK, but let's be completely fair then shall we?" that was intended as a nod to andy19191's point, an acknowledgment so as to move on to the substantive issues, namely Mr. Goldacre's intellectual sloppiness and misrepresentation of JA's article (the one Mr. Goldacre quoted from).
        Clearly andy19191 is attempting to use his little victory, JA's "fairly elementary logical error", one that does little more than demonstration JA's lack of infallibility (OMG, shock! horror!), to detract attention from the substantive issues.
        But Pat, the reality is that such a crude maneuver, a transparent attempt at obfuscation, demonstrates little more than that andy19191 is a I-Child ... like you!
        
        No, in a criticism of what Mr. Goldacre SAID it's a major error. - Pat D 05:34:43 04/29/06 (9)
        
        In Reply to: Pat, posted by bjh on April 28, 2006 at 20:14:44:
        
        What is left of JA's criticism? Not much . . .
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        I, and no doubt many other, "hi-fi freaks" (Goldacre) understand why you would see it that way. :) nt - bjh 06:39:43 04/29/06 (8)
        
        In Reply to: No, in a criticism of what Mr. Goldacre SAID it's a major error. posted by Pat D on April 29, 2006 at 05:34:43:
        
        .
        
        Ah yes. I've noticed you don't mind misrepresenting people's opinions, either. (nt) - Pat D 18:08:57 04/29/06 (7)
        
        In Reply to: I, and no doubt many other, "hi-fi freaks" (Goldacre) understand why you would see it that way. :) nt posted by bjh on April 29, 2006 at 06:39:43:
        
        .
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        I-Child. nt - bjh 18:41:07 04/29/06 (6)
        
        In Reply to: Ah yes. I've noticed you don't mind misrepresenting people's opinions, either. (nt) posted by Pat D on April 29, 2006 at 18:08:57:
        
        .
        
        Are you just racist or what? - Pat D 11:42:13 05/01/06 (5)
        
        In Reply to: I-Child. nt posted by bjh on April 29, 2006 at 18:41:07:
        
        Perhaps you'd better think about that again.
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        I-Child (Open in New Window)
        
        Jesus that was stupid! You've outdone youself. Racist??? "Idiots" ... a Race!!!! Perfect Period. nt - bjh 12:17:38 05/01/06 (4)
        
        In Reply to: Are you just racist or what? posted by Pat D on May 1, 2006 at 11:42:13:
        
        .
        
        I just did a search for I-Child and that's what I got . . . - Pat D 20:11:45 05/01/06 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Jesus that was stupid! You've outdone youself. Racist??? "Idiots" ... a Race!!!! Perfect Period. nt posted by bjh on May 1, 2006 at 12:17:38:
        
        So what have you got against children from India and the Subcontinent?
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        http://www.serve.com/ichild/ (Open in New Window)
        
        Pat, it appears you've located "IChild", not "I-Child"!; as a stickler for detail you'll acknowledge the difference. - bjh 07:54:17 05/02/06 (2)
        
        In Reply to: I just did a search for I-Child and that's what I got . . . posted by Pat D on May 1, 2006 at 20:11:45:
        
        Nonetheless the only person confused as to the contextual meaning is you, after all the meaning has been make explicit on a number of occasions. Still your confusion hardly comes as a surprise, you *are* an I-Child after all.
        ---
        Now Pat go find someone else to play with, I grown tied of pointing out what an I-Child you are.
        And just so we're completely clear, if you continue to pester me I may resort to saying something *nasty* to you ... we don't want that, now do we Pat?
        ta-ta
        
        My, my, my . . . - Pat D 08:00:32 05/02/06 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Pat, it appears you've located "IChild", not "I-Child"!; as a stickler for detail you'll acknowledge the difference. posted by bjh on May 2, 2006 at 07:54:17:
        
        You mean you don't like having something you said systematically misinterpreted? Goodness, gracious me, I'd never have guessed from your behaviour.
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        drop me a line - Ozzie 21:45:23 05/05/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: My, my, my . . . posted by Pat D on May 2, 2006 at 08:00:32:
        
        your email bounced
- Thanks - John Atkinson 13:52:39 04/28/06 (3)
  > Hence we may now add misrepresentation to go along with sloppiness
  > in describing Goldacre's article.
  
  Thanks, bjh, for so clearly expressing what I was trying to do in my
  previous posting.
  
  John Atkinson
  Editor, Stereophile
  - Re: Thanks - andy19191 15:11:32 04/28/06 (1)
    Shame on you.
    - Re: Thanks - John Atkinson 11:09:42 04/29/06 (0)
      > Shame on you.
      
      I am not sure what I said that triggered this outbusts from you, Andy19191, but thank you also. :-)
      
      John Atkinson
      Editor, Stereophile
  - np nt. - bjh 13:54:56 04/28/06 (0)
    .

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

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]

You can not post to an archived thread.