opaqueice;131968 Wrote: > Ias I've already mentioned, there is no way to classify statements as > "positive" or "negative". That renders the whole discussion moot and > the claim "you can't prove a negative" meaningless.
No, it doesn't. Here's an analogy from biology that I hope will demonstrate where I'm coming from. Let's say you have a gene "X". You have a phenotype "P". You want to know if perturbing X causes P (X=P). So, let's say you perturb X and you get phenotype P. You haven't shown definitively X=P, but you can move forward. You have a "positive" result. What happens if you perturb X and you don't get P (X~=P)? That is usually considered a "negative" result. It really depends on your experiment. The key here is how we "perturbed" X. Some perturbations are much easier to characterize than others. If the perturbation was a genetic knockout, for example, your "negative" result actually becomes quite positive. Classifying experimental results as "positive" or "negative" is standard practice. When you these terms, you have to understand their relative meaning. Unlike in pure math, where humans define the rules, scientific proofs don't exist. The most obvious example being the Theory of Evolution. You can't really prove it, but you can make a very strong case using positive and negative experimental results. It's not about whether you can't prove a negative. That's a misuse of terminology. It's really about determining whether negative results can prove anything at all for a particular experiment. In the case of the now famous "63 tweak", the fact that some people don't hear it (negative data) doesn't "prove" there is no effect. On the other hand, the fact that some people do hear it doesn't "prove" there is an effect. If those people go to great lengths to set up the proper experimental conditions (i.e. DBX testing), and there is still positive result, then that *does* go a long way toward showing there is a real effect. They need to do those tests, though, to give the argument a fighting chance. My point here is that negative data is often not very useful, especially compared to real positive data. If the other side had positive data, you or I could not argue with it, right? All we have right now is negative data, and all that means is that we can't hear it. We can't say any more than that. -- ezkcdude SB3->Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC->MIT Terminator 2 interconnects->Endler Audio 24-step Attenuators (RCA-direct)->Parasound Halo A23 125W/ch amplifier->Speltz anti-cables->DIY 2-ways + Dayton Titanic 10" subwoofer He's not hi-fi, he's my stereo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26436 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
