opaqueice;131882 Wrote: > I assure you (as a full-time scientist) that what you term a "negative" > result goes precisely as far towards proving something as does a > "positive" result. > > The statement "you can't prove a negative" is a common fallacy; to > anyone with a passing knowledge of formal logic it's plainly not true. > Since I doubt you will believe me and I don't want to argue about this > again, please read any of these: > > http://www.google.com/search?q=you+can%27t+prove+a+negative
There seems to be some confusion about the terminology here. A "negative result" is the outcome of an experiment that was meant to demonstrate a certain property, but failed to do so. Now, when you have several unknown variables (such as the listener's abilities, the audio system's quality) a negative result is just a non-result. It proves nothing. If, on the other hand, an ABX shows a strong positive result, then the unknown variables do not matter, and we do have a proof. (Assuming the ABX wasn't compromised.) -- P Floding ------------------------------------------------------------------------ P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26436 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
