[Harry Lavo]

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:

snip

So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Not necesarily. If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
(stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology, etc.)

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and even
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluative
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.