[KH]

On 12/19/2012 10:17 AM, Scott wrote:
On Dec 19, 3:39 am, KH wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:18 AM, Scott wrote:


Well, some of us *are* engaged in *real* science on a daily basis, and
do understand the precepts.

And some of you clearly are not and clearly don't.

Yes, I am. Are you?

I would
think that if objectivists were genuinely interested in applying
science to the question of amplifier sound they would not move the
goal posts nor would they use ABX DBTs the way they have when it comes
to amplifier sound.

The thread has nothing to do with "amplifier" sound.

Then take it up with the moderators. The subject has been brought up
so I addressed it.

Take it up with the thread TITLE.


That being typically breaking out ABX and failing
to ever control for same sound bias or even calibrate the sensitivity
of the test. Without such calibration a single null result tells us
very little about what was and was not learned about the sound of the
components under test.

Careful reading would show I clearly stipulated such requirements need
to be defined and accounted for. Arguing in favor of my stated position
isn't much of a refutation.

Careful reading *of the entire thread* would show that 1. Other people
besides you are involved. 2. Others have stipulated such requirements
are either unnecessary or don't exist at all. Just read the quoted
text in this post. It's there and because it's there it's relevant

I didn't respond to the "entire" thread, but to a post. If you think
every post has to be responsive to the original post, you will likely be
disappointed.

But of course my point was the fact that no scientist worth his or her
salt would ever make dogmatic claims of fact based on the results of
any single ABX DBT null. And if one think that claims from
subjectivists should alter that fact then they simply don't understand
how real science deals with and interprets real scientific data.

The "dogmatic" claims, as you describe them, were based on physics and
engineering principles,


Really? Once again we have a bogus waving of the science flag. Do tell
us what "physics" stands behind the claim? And let me remind of just
what that claim was to begiin with. In this thread it was claimed On
Dec 14, 8:17 pm, Barkingspyder wrote: "The
nice thing about testing for difference as ABX does is that if there
is no difference detected you know that the more expensive one is not
any better sounding." So please show us how this claim was based on
physics and engineering principles. In what part of physics is it
stated that one can draw hard conclusions from one null result done at
home? What engineering principle supports this claim?


and the fact that listening tests, under
controlled conditions, have not shown results that dispute those
principles.

Please cite the principles you are refering to and the actual
listening tests. Hopefully for your sake you are not going to cite the
listening tests published in The Sensible Sound. ;-)

There was no claim, as I read it, that any individual test
was applicable to all conditions.

You might want to read this again then. On Dec 14, 8:17 pm,
Barkingspyder wrote: "The nice thing about
testing for difference as ABX does is that if there is no difference
detected you know that the more expensive one is not any better
sounding."

Once again, I was responding a specific post and your response. That
would seem pretty obvious.


Quite the opposite in fact - where
are the tests that contradict the the physics and engineering principles?


There you go waving the science flag again with nothing of substance
behind it. Please cite the physics and engineering principles you
believe support the claim that "The nice thing about testing for
difference as ABX does is that if there is no difference detected you
know that the more expensive one is not any better sounding." After
all, this is the specific claim I was challenging and others
apparently, including yourself, are defending.

Again, you need to stay focused on the posts I was responding too if you
want to make sense of the discussion.


Understanding he true significance of a single null result
does not require consideration of you or anyone else has been told by
other audiophiles.

That would rest entirely upon how the null hypothesis is constructed,
and may indeed include such claims.

No it does not. Real science builds it's conclusions on an
accumulation of research.

No, every test has a conclusion, and is dispositive, if executed
accurately, within the limitations of the specific test.

Within the limitations of the specific test. And within the
limitations of a home brewed ABX test one can not reasonable conclude
from a single null result that "if there is no difference detected you
know that the more expensive one is not any better sounding." That is
an erroneous and very unscientific conclusion.


Again if one understands how science works
they should know the real standing of one singular null result. That
being it is most certainly not something one can reasonably close the
books on and say that it is final proof of no difference.

The "books" are clearly closed on that test group, under those test
conditions. To think otherwise is to deny the relevance of all tests
under all conditions,

"that test group" being what? All tests being what? All conditions
being what? Your claim is way overly vague to even address.



For that to affect the weight placed on any single
test result would quite unscientific thinking.

Again, simply not accurate with respect to the world of possible
hypotheses. Any null result for a discrimination test evaluating
"obvious" differences will be significant, if not dispository, for that
test and equipment, as long as the test is set up properly.

Sorry but you are plainly wrong. No scientist would ever put that much
stock in one test. It runs contrary to the very idea of
falsifiability, peer review or the idea of verification via repetition
of previous tests.very very unscientific

Nonsense.

Nonsense to your claim of nonsense.

Do one tox study and argue that 90% severe adverse effects
doesn't mean anything.

Hold on here. You are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say the
test results of a single null "doesn't mean anything." Please quote
me. This is a typical straw man argument.

Gee, I thought "No scientist would ever put that much
stock in one test." was pretty clear. And please don't toss in the
dodge of "Barkingspyder said XXX", I clearly stated that "Any null
result for a discrimination test evaluating "obvious" differences will
be significant, if not dispository, for that test and equipment, as long
as the test is set up properly.", nothing more or less. Please explain
how that is nonsense in the context presented.



See how far that gets you.

It wouldn't get me v ery far but I know better than to do that. But
that is not what i am doing here.

And, in any event,
that has zero to do with falsifiability. The results of any study stand
on their own unless and until they are demonstrated to be suspect, or
wrong. If the test is not designed to be falsifiable, it is a defective
design irrespective of how the data are analyzed or used. Perhaps you
need to brush up on what falsifiability means in test design.

Perhaps you need to be reminded again of the original claim I was
disputing.

You were not, in the post I responded to, referring to the original post
(or were doing so in a manner to sufficiently cryptic to defy
identification), you were responding to Arny's post.


On Dec 14, 8:17 pm, Barkingspyder wrote:
"The nice thing about testing for difference as ABX does is that if
there is no difference detected you know that the more expensive one
is not any better sounding."



snip



Sorry, but you seem to be using a rather unique definition of "fact" as
"real scientists" make claims of fact for every such study.

Complete nonsense. And you say this after bring up the null
hypothesis. You might want to read up on the null hypothesis and what
it proves and what it does not prove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

I suggest you follow your own recommendation.

Oh I did. Here is what it says.
"The null hypothesis can never be proven. Data, such as the results of
an observation or experiment, can only reject or fail to reject a null
hypothesis"
Now what does that say about this claim? "The nice thing about
testing for difference as ABX does is that if there is no difference
detected you know that the more expensive one is not any better
sounding." Did you catch the word "KNOW" in there?

OK, so when the null hypothesis is "there are no significant differences
in sound between X and Y" it can be rejected when not true, right? The
qualifier - signficant, un-subtle, unmistakeable, etc. - defines the
sensitivity and precision required for the test (i.e. dismisses all of
the usual dodging and weaving about "forced choice stress", etc.). So,
given that the required sensitivity is trivial to achieve, we have the
following:

1. Physics and engineering principles, along with many years of
audiology and psychoacoustic experimentation provide an objective
threshold level below which differences are not detectable.
2. DBT tests of clearly sufficient sensitivity - given the claims - to
detect such differences if they exist, have all been negative.
3. There are no DBT data to contravene the expected results based on
engineering principles.
4. The null hypothesis is thus *accepted*, not disproven. This is the
basic mistake that most neophytes make. The null hypothesis is NOT that
two items/populations are different, it's that they are NOT different.
Thus one never needs to reject the null hypothesis to confirm
difference, just the opposite.

When one accepts the null hypothesis, one accepts that there is no
difference between the subjects/items/populations. So when you ask "Now
what does that say about this claim?", what is say is that one cannot
reject the null hypothesis that *they are the same*.

So no, accepting the null hypothesis doesn't "prove" there is no
difference. What is shows is that when clearly sensitive enough methods
are employed for evaluation, no differences are found. In this context,
where there are clear objective reasons why there *should* be no
differences, there is no additional burden on the proponents of the null
hypothesis.

snip
And you are
conflating "facts" with "conclusions".

I am? Here is the conclusion I am challenging "The nice thing about
testing for difference as ABX does is that if there is no difference
detected you know that the more expensive one is not any better
sounding." His conclusion is a claim of fact. So who exactly is
conflating facts with conclusions?

The only relevant conclusion I
saw in the subject post had to do with lack of data contravening known
physical and engineering principles, not citing any single test as
globally applicable.

Cherry picking is also very unscientific. if that is the only
conclusion you saw in this thread

I wasn't responding to the entire thread - merely to you, and the post
you replied to. That should have been quite clear.


then you missed the very conclusion
I have challenged in this thread. Just so you don't miss it again.
"The nice thing about testing for difference as ABX does is that if
there is no difference detected you know that the more expensive one
is not any better sounding."

And this is, indeed, accurate in the situation where you have physical
or engineering based information that is corroborated by the ABX data.
ONLY in the presence of contravening data would this conclusion be
suspect. Where are those data?

Keith