Home Critic's Corner

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

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

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

I wrote:
> > "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."

Any19191 wrote:
> John is misrepresenting what was said:

I don't think so, unless you insist that the only interpretation Mr.
Goldacre intended was the literal meaning of the words he used, and
that no other implication was intended.

Here is what Ben Goldacre wrote, reprinted form your posting:
> "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."

What do you think Mr. Goldacre was intending by this sentence. I
assumed, not unreasonably, that Goldacre found this "notion" flawed
or even invalid. This assumption was reinforced by the following
comments by Mr. Goldacre, which you failed to quote:

I wrote back in 1989: in the article quoted by Goldacre: "... then
perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very
procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real
subjective differences."

To which Mr. Goldacre responded "Ouch."

What did _you_ think Mr. Goldacre meant by "Ouch," Andy19191? It is
not unreasonable, I feel, to assume that he was intending
disagreement with my statement? Is it not reasonable to assume
from "Ouch" that Mr. Goldacre feels that blind testing does
_not_ "conceal small but real subjective differences"?

Mr. Goldacre goes on to quote me again: "Having taken part in quite a
number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in
this hypothesis."

To which Goldacre responded, "What voodoo is this?"

Again, I though this wording of Goldacre's a clear indication that he
_disagreed_ with me. How you feel I have misrepresented Mr.
Goldacre's feeling about the efficacy of blind tests escapes me,
Andy191919. Unless in your world, "ouch" and "voodoo" are words that
are intended to express agreement and support. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


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

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]