CatBus;178001 Wrote: > If you're looking to prove something, you need to prove it. Every > assumption you make has to be independently tested, or you need to > modify your original test to not include those assumptions.
I wasn't looking to scientifically prove anything. I was looking to provide enough evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt. > i.e. your initial test might very well be a fine single-blind test. But > you'd need to perform a completely separate test simply to prove that > subjects could not perceive that other subjects have raised their hands > (because that has not been established). And another to show they > couldn't hear you making the tweak. And yet another to show that they > could not perceive you reacting to other subjects raising their hands > (turning your head, turning to one side). And multiple tests and > placebo tests to weed out dumb luck. > > And procedural error in any of these sub-tests would invalidate the > main test, because your main test relies on them. Which is why it's > easier, in the long run, not to use such assumptions at all. >From what I understand, single-blind tests are not scientifically valid to begin with (based on comments by proponents of double-blind tests)...is this correct? -- PhilNYC Sonic Spirits Inc. http://www.sonicspirits.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PhilNYC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=837 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
