View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
BEAR
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

There have been three articles on the web pages recently about the place,
or not, of blind testing. We had a double rehash of the editor's epiphany
that if you make yourself subject to all the standard conditions known to
produce subjective effects based on false perceptions existing only in the
brain, you will have those false perceptions. This was the basis of his
"debate" offering reported before in print and again in the web pieces.


The "discussion" - thus far - imho is all nonsense on both "sides."

I, personally, am neither for nor "against" DBTs.

I am, however entirely against unwarranted conclusions, poorly set up
"test" conditions, as well as against "snake oil" and "golden ear
pronouncements."

It is my opinion that it is possible to set up a DBT that *might* yield
results that have meaning, not just statistical significance. This has
yet to be done, afaik, and I don't have the time nor funding to do the
job. If you do, contact me. We can become well known in the field. :- )

It is rather obvious to me why the erstwhile Mr. Atkinson's
VTL/Adcom/B&W "test" was flawed before it started, just as all the other
"tests" I'm aware of have been as well. If ur reading this and don't see
the flaws, sorry, I've laid them out in detail in past posts (use google
search or email me privately, if you *really* want to know).

The bottom line is that thus far there has been no *definitive* research
done, no substantive "DBT tests" and there is no basis for doing
anything but arguing back and forth like a bunch of "chickens squaking
in the hen house." Except if someone or some group actually comes up
with the venue and funding to do these sorts of tests up to the maximum
state of the technology in all respects, and possibly get back somthing
with meaning. Just my 2 cents.

_-_-bear