|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: You are so far from getting this. posted by robert young on June 18, 2008 at 19:54:54:
There are some well known flaws in medical DBTs ---{ I'm refering specifically to medical DBTs because objectivists here often site these medical DBTs as proof postive of the scientific validity of audio DBTs! }
Presently there are concerns over the actual validity of DBTs in medical circles. One example for this concern is known as the inclusion/exclusion criteria . For those who don't know inclusion/exclusion criteria is believed to be an important principle of medical research that's purported to help produce reliable results. However that belief is now being questioned.
The factors that allow someone to participate in a clinical trial are called "inclusion criteria" and those that disallow someone from participating are called "exclusion criteria". These criteria are based on such factors as age, gender, the type and stage of a disease, previous treatment history, and other medical conditions. Before joining a clinical trial, a participant must qualify for the study! How many times do the proponents of audio DBTs require that the participants qualify for the study of proving or disproving the ability to detect sonic differences in "properly designed" & properly functioning components via audio DBTs?
The usage of the inclusion/exclusion criteria has been thought to seriously distort the results of the DBT yet the fact that it is a DBT gives a piece of research this legendary "scientifically respected methodology" status and almost guarantees publishing. Talk about a double edged sword?
Another reason medical DBTs are starting to be questioned is due to "sighted" and other sensory orientated reasons! With medical DBTs drug A may not look like drug B. The people involved in the medical DBTs can sometimes see a noticable difference between the two different DUT! Yet in audio DBTs if subjectivists could see the difference between the two different DUT objectivists would instantly claim the test is invalid.
Perhaps drug A doesn't taste like drug B, or it may have a trivial but detectable side-effect with reveals to a patient which drug it is, or blinded researchers may suspect that drug A is a particular drug and bias their results accordingly etc etc ad infinitum. Even more variables come into a DBT when it is treatment A versus treatment B. A study may compare a new treatment against just one of the current treatments - and placebos / null controls may be impossible for ethical reasons (you can't give placebo cancer chemotherapy). Perhaps the biggest cause for concern over the validity of medical DBTs is when two properly done medical DBTs reach completely opposite conclusions!
In any event medical DBTs are no longer ---{ and in reality they never were }--- the flawless scientific proof that objectivists believe they are. Audio DBTs are simply not trustworthy for being able to discern if the participants are able to detect sonic differences. The reality is this: The correct way to describe the negative results of any test like this (whether ABX or any other double-blind format) is that under the conditions of this test, listeners were unable to distinguish one component from another by sound alone. That does NOT mean that all components are audibly indistinguishable to all listeners under all circumstances. They were just indistinguishable to these participants in these circumstances.
Thetubeguy1954
A Rational Subjectivist
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Known Flaws In DBTS! - thetubeguy1954 06/19/0808:39:56 06/19/08 (1)
- It seems we have taught you something . . . - Pat D 14:21:15 06/19/08 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
