PhilNYC;178002 Wrote: > I wasn't looking to scientifically prove anything. I was looking to > provide enough evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same thing. Scientifically proven doesn't mean it's written in stone. It just means it passes the best intellectual rigor we can manage at the moment. Anything short of scientific proof, and all doubt is reasonable IMO. For the sake of the forum, I'll just accept this as a difference of opinion and move on. PhilNYC;178002 Wrote: > 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? Not all tests involve self-aware subjects. If you drop two stones from a tower, it doesn't really matter if you tell them what you're doing first. -- CatBus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32466 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
