Hi,
I see that in fact you are not being malicious, you simply don't understand.
Well, either that or the reverse.
First, your example is very poor.
No, it was graphic!
You claimed, according to your writing, that the simple fact that a given thesis, contention or observation is in dispute prooves that it is irelevant/false.
I simply applied your methode to a field of endeavour other than audio. Surely the same scientific principles apply to audio as well as to other fields?
There isn't any more a great deal of dispute about the particle or wave nature of photons. A central concept of quantum mechanics is the wave-particle duality which is that all particles also have a wave like nature.
Yet one thing cannot be two different things at the same time. This agreement is simply saying "we got no clue" in a way that makes less educated people believe the "cognescenti" actually understand this and have answers.
In essence, a photon is both a particle and a wave simultaneously and will behave as a photon or a wave depending on how you choose to observe it.
That is a bad case of DejaMoo.
If the observation changes the nature of a thing observed the observation illusion or delusion.
Applying Occams Razor suggests that a photon is NEITHER but something we do not understand sufficiently to explain.
Otherwise we may as well claim that differences between cables exist but their apparency depends on how we choose to observe them. Or that differences that are real and aparent in sighted testing disappear if we choose blind testing instead.
An appropriate science analogy would be whether whether 2 chemically similar drugs (A and B) are equally effective at treating a certain type of cancer or whether A is actually more effective than B (or vice versa).
Given that you decided unwisely to bring this subject up again, let me again be ruse by referencing myself:
3Dsonics said:
Show me a clinical trial with only a single subject and 15 {added later - or 20} administrations of a dose of medicine or placebo {or compound A or B} and which applies a .05 significance to the subjects ability to tell if they received placebo or medicine {or compound A or B}.
If there existed any dispute amongst scientists about whether there was any difference between A and B it would be a very strong indicator that any differences that existed were likely to be very small, or possbly non-existent.
If the basis for dispute was an experiment like the one I outlined quoting myself, there would be no dispute, just loud and echoing laughter shooing the experimenter out of the hallowed halls of science. Yet, what is unfair/unapplicable/unscientific in any field other than audio suddely becomes the pinaccle of science in an act of transsubstantiation which will leave the priest in your local church (who routinely transsubstatiates bread and wine into the flesh and blood of crist for a bit of symbolic canibalism) gasping for breath.
However, in the case of cancer treating drugs a small difference is anything but irrelevant. If drug A can prolong or save the life of only 1% more patients than drug B then it's a worthwhile difference.
And likely 100% of the subjects will take it (or want to - anyone remember Herceptin) and hence what will help 1% of patients will make profit for the pharmaceutical company from 100% of them.
Of course, unlike Cable manufacturers, who are despicable frauds and frauds (even their products make a real difference for 1% of the people they market to), the pharmaceutical industry acts purely out of the good of their hearts, seeking only to help poor sick people and be him counted a knave who sees any parallels between the two.
Studying pharmacology at university (hence the references to drug trials) gave me more material exposure to real statistics than I would wish on anybody, but if you would like to learn you could do worse than
Wikipedia.
That given and noting that you still defend a significance of .05 and a "pass or fail" criteria for a DBT/ABXT using a single subject and very few samples I am sure your professor is by now in severe distress, should he notice, about how poorely he taught you.
Ciao T
)
