In Reply to: Congratulations! posted by Rob Doorack on March 2, 2012 at 20:33:41:
You've managed to completely dodge the huge body of research that indicates that researchers, despite their best intentions, are highly susceptible to bias. Have you ever actually opened a scholarly journal in psychology, educational assessment, anthropology, field ecology or numerous other fields? Spend half a day in a good university library and you should easily be able to able to easily find twenty articles related to experimenter/observer/tester bias published in the last ten years. If you get a librarian to help you you can probably expand that count to fifty, many of them thoroughly peer reviewed. Of course we have your absolute assurance that you're better/purer than all those tedious science guys wasting their time with unnecessary elaborations in statistics and experimental methodology because you KNOW that you're impervious to bias either overt or subconscious. How could that possibly be interpreted as either monumental hubris or naivety? Are those priestly robes comfortable?The funny thing is that I'm actually not one of those people like the Hydrogen Audio crowd who insist that only measurements or statistically significant double blind listening tests are meaningful. As understand his position I'm probably closer to the sensibilities of someone like the late J. Gordon Holt.
"There are political consequences to remembering things that never happened and forgetting things that did." Ariel Levy
Edits: 03/03/12
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Okay, I'm starting to lean toward simple - plantsman 02:42:56 03/03/12 (3)
- Shorter Plantsman: "I still can't explain how trade discounts cause false reviews" - Rob Doorack 18:32:55 03/03/12 (0)
- There are no unbiased experts. - Tony Lauck 15:08:56 03/03/12 (0)
- RE: Okay, I'm starting to lean toward simple - Analog Scott 09:31:15 03/03/12 (0)