The current issue of Skeptic has two good articles of relevance
here , one on audio in particular (written by Ethan Winer) and another on
the history and uses of double-blind tests generally.

http://www.skeptic.com/


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Could you post the url of the articles, Going to the page listed I could
find nothing relating to "audio" nor the author mentioned; thanks.

wrote:
Could you post the url of the articles, Going to the page listed I could
find nothing relating to "audio" nor the author mentioned; thanks.

There is no url of the article. The page I posted is
the Skeptic Society and Skeptic magazine
home page. If you click on the magazine cover image
in the upper left corner, you'll see an enlarged view,
where you can read the blurb for an article called 'Audio Scams'.
And another for the DBT article.
You'll have to buy the magazine. I buy it at my local
Barnes & Noble or Borders. I don't know if they sell the
current one by itself online, htough apparenlty the do
sell individual back issues.



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Steven Sullivan wrote:
The current issue of Skeptic has two good articles of relevance
here , one on audio in particular (written by Ethan Winer) and
another on
the history and uses of double-blind tests generally.

I'v never read this magazine before. Now I know why so many people
believe in voodoo--because the truth is DULL. And not particularly well
explained, either. The article on audio mentions blind tests only in
passing. And it's obvious the author (who designs room treatments)
isn't up on all the many rationalizations of the "science doesn't know
everything, ergo anything" crowd. This piece wouldn't convince anyone
who wasn't already convinced. But then, that's who'd read a book like
this.

As for the other article, it's specifically about DBTs in the
medical/health field--very good about their limitations, and about the
many things we assume are true that haven't been (or can't be) tested.
Applicability to audio is a stretch, however.

bob

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
The current issue of Skeptic has two good articles of relevance
here , one on audio in particular (written by Ethan Winer) and
another on
the history and uses of double-blind tests generally.

I'v never read this magazine before. Now I know why so many people
believe in voodoo--because the truth is DULL. And not particularly well
explained, either. The article on audio mentions blind tests only in
passing. And it's obvious the author (who designs room treatments)
isn't up on all the many rationalizations of the "science doesn't know
everything, ergo anything" crowd. This piece wouldn't convince anyone
who wasn't already convinced. But then, that's who'd read a book like
this.

Well, yes, the truth -- that lots of audio gear probably sound the same --
is kinda dull, I suppose. I found the article a rather good survey of the
usual audiophile suspects -- something your average Skeptic reader might
not familiar with. If anything it errs on the side of politeness.

I'm pretty sure Ethan, who participates in more than a few online audio
forums, has encountered most of the rationalizations offered by
subjectivists at this point. But maybe not. I'll invite him to RAHE
and see if he wants to comment.

As for the other article, it's specifically about DBTs in the
medical/health field--very good about their limitations, and about the
many things we assume are true that haven't been (or can't be) tested.
Applicability to audio is a stretch, however.

Not IMO -- particularly as regards the various forms of bias. It wouldn't
require a great leap to mesh the two articles together in one's mind.

An in-depth survey of the history of the subj/obj debate in audiophilia
would make an interesting article. Maybe some day I'll get around to
writing it. First, I have to definitively track down the origin of the
Green Pen fable ;





--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

wrote in message ...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
The current issue of Skeptic has two good articles of relevance
here , one on audio in particular (written by Ethan Winer) and
another on
the history and uses of double-blind tests generally.

I'v never read this magazine before. Now I know why so many people
believe in voodoo--because the truth is DULL. And not particularly well
explained, either. The article on audio mentions blind tests only in
passing. And it's obvious the author (who designs room treatments)
isn't up on all the many rationalizations of the "science doesn't know
everything, ergo anything" crowd. This piece wouldn't convince anyone
who wasn't already convinced. But then, that's who'd read a book like
this.

As for the other article, it's specifically about DBTs in the
medical/health field--very good about their limitations, and about the
many things we assume are true that haven't been (or can't be) tested.
Applicability to audio is a stretch, however.

Thank you, Bob, for what seems to be an objective point of view. If one of
we "subjectivists" had said it we'd have launched a year's worth of
bickering. Now I won't bother looking for it at Barnes & Noble this
weekend.

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
The current issue of Skeptic has two good articles of relevance
here , one on audio in particular (written by Ethan Winer) and
another on
the history and uses of double-blind tests generally.

I'v never read this magazine before. Now I know why so many people
believe in voodoo--




I'm not so sure you do. But I suggest you continue to read that
magazine. One of the editors, Michael Shermer, has actually written a
book on the subject. I believe it is called "Why peopel believe wierd
things."




because the truth is DULL.



Oh. I beg to differ here. As rich and beautiful as mythology may be,
there is nothing boring about the wonders of science.




And not particularly well
explained, either.


What have you been reading? I have found many good books on science for
laymen.




The article on audio mentions blind tests only in
passing. And it's obvious the author (who designs room treatments)
isn't up on all the many rationalizations of the "science doesn't
know
everything, ergo anything" crowd.



You mean he isn't up to speed on one of the common RAHE straw man
arguments? Good for him.




This piece wouldn't convince anyone
who wasn't already convinced.



Convinced of what?




But then, that's who'd read a book like
this.



I read skeptic magazine quite often. I think Michael Shermer is an
excellent representative of skeptics. I think he writes and speaks well
on behalf of good skepticism.






As for the other article, it's specifically about DBTs in the
medical/health field--very good about their limitations, and about
the
many things we assume are true that haven't been (or can't be)
tested.
Applicability to audio is a stretch, however.





Scott Wheeler