In Reply to: Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" posted by bjh on April 27, 2006 at 12:58:21:
> is there a audible difference? But I would maintain that such is of
> little interest to audiophiles, we're interested in what you call
> "real subjective differences", i.e. we want a description of the
> attributes of the sound.If there is no audible difference between two audio components would you consider a discussion of their "real subjective differences" to be of interest? And would you expect to hear those subjective differences yourself in the same way as reported? If so, to what do you attribute these differences: a property of the audio components or something related to your own perception?
> ... the topic of why we're generally less than proficient at ignoring
> them is an interesting one, likewise the field of science that could
> help explain such, but perhaps another day.There is lot more than science interested in the growing phenomena of "truthiness" as exhibited by audiophiles, alternative therapy adherents, neocons, and the like.
> "But Mr. Goldacre appears to be making the naïve 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."John is misrepresenting what was 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."
This states audiophiles consider blind tests to be intrinsically flawed and not that Ben considers all blind tests to be legitimate.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - andy19191 04/27/0615:06:55 04/27/06 (32)
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - John Atkinson 08:29:40 04/28/06 (20)
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - andy19191 11:53:22 04/28/06 (19)
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - bjh 12:55:26 04/28/06 (18)
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - andy19191 15:08:39 04/28/06 (13)
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - bjh 17:37:35 04/28/06 (12)
- JA made a fairly elementary logical error, bjh. - Pat D 17:52:09 04/28/06 (11)
- Pat, - bjh 20:14:44 04/28/06 (10)
- No, in a criticism of what Mr. Goldacre SAID it's a major error. - Pat D 05:34:43 04/29/06 (9)
- 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)
- Ah yes. I've noticed you don't mind misrepresenting people's opinions, either. (nt) - Pat D 18:08:57 04/29/06 (7)
- I-Child. nt - bjh 18:41:07 04/29/06 (6)
- Are you just racist or what? - Pat D 11:42:13 05/1/06 (5)
- Jesus that was stupid! You've outdone youself. Racist??? "Idiots" ... a Race!!!! Perfect Period. nt - bjh 12:17:38 05/1/06 (4)
- I just did a search for I-Child and that's what I got . . . - Pat D 20:11:45 05/1/06 (3)
- Pat, it appears you've located "IChild", not "I-Child"!; as a stickler for detail you'll acknowledge the difference. - bjh 07:54:17 05/2/06 (2)
- My, my, my . . . - Pat D 08:00:32 05/2/06 (1)
- drop me a line - Ozzie 21:45:23 05/5/06 (0)
- Thanks - John Atkinson 13:52:39 04/28/06 (3)
- Re: Thanks - andy19191 15:11:32 04/28/06 (1)
- Re: Thanks - John Atkinson 11:09:42 04/29/06 (0)
- np nt. - bjh 13:54:56 04/28/06 (0)
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - bjh 15:36:46 04/27/06 (10)
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - andy19191 23:11:40 04/27/06 (5)
- I believe I did pick up on your - bjh 04:28:54 04/28/06 (4)
- Re: I believe I did pick up on your - andy19191 05:14:37 04/28/06 (3)
- Re: I believe I did pick up on your - bjh 07:09:41 04/28/06 (2)
- Re: I believe I did pick up on your - andy19191 08:21:48 04/28/06 (1)
- Contribution? - mkuller 11:17:47 04/28/06 (0)
- Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - Pat D 17:49:11 04/27/06 (3)
- Study the following carefully Pat: - bjh 18:47:43 04/27/06 (2)
- Re: Study the following carefully Pat: - Pat D 06:12:03 04/28/06 (1)
- Seek assistance elsewhere, I can't help you. :) nt - bjh 07:11:58 04/28/06 (0)