"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:31:13 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Jim West" wrote in message
news:fnaWa.19572$cF.7720@rwcrnsc53...
In article nR%Va.24664$YN5.23125@sccrnsc01, Harry Lavo wrote:

You mean not accepting the "received truth" without doing my own
analysis is
cherry picking, is that it Stewart?

No, attempting to extract *only* those sub-tests which agree with your
prejudices is 'cherry picking', and even then, you can' t make it
stick on the numbers in that series of tests.

We are not allowed to point out
anonomlies and ask "why"? "how come"? "what could be causing this?"

You are indeed cherry picking. With 12 individuals the probability that
one would would appear to meet the 95% level is fairly high. Remember
that you can expect 1 in 20 to meet that level entirely by random. It
is not acceptable scientific practice to select specific data sub-sets
out of the complete set. Otherwise you could "prove" anything by simply
running enough trials and ignoring those you don't like. Check any peer
reviewed journal.

Yep it is more probable than one in twenty. But not so high that we have
to
accept your assumption that he/she *IS* the one-in-twenty.

Unfortunately for your speculation, that individual did poorly in the
amplifier test. Similarly, the best scorers in the amp test did poorly
on cables. IOW, the results were *random*, and did not show *any* sign
of a genuine audible difference, despite your many and convoluted
attempts to distort the data to fit your agenda.

Ah, the "received truth", better known as dogma. And why, pray tell,
Stewart, is your explanation any more valid than my supposition that the
cable test and the amp test may have revealed different attributes of
reproduction of that particular musical piece at the margin, and that the
two men were each more sensitive to one than the other.?