arnyk wrote: > It's also false because it forces a false dichotomy between observations > and measurements when in fact they are the same thing.
I think the way SBGK uses the word "observation" is in the sense of "acquisition of information employing the senses", while you are using it in the scientific meaning of the word. A few useful reminders on 'observation' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation): > Observations play a role in the second and fifth steps of the scientific > method. However the need for reproducibility requires that observations > by different observers can be comparable. Human sense impressions are > subjective and qualitative making them difficult to record or compare. > Theed or shared by all observers, and counting how many of the standard > units are comparable to the object. Measurement reduces an observation > to a number which can be recorded, and two observations which result in > the same number are equal within the resolution of the process. > > Senses are limited, and are subject to errors in perception such as > optical illusions. Scientific instruments were developed to magnify > human powers of observation, such as weighing scales, clocks, > telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, cameras, and tape recorders, and > also translate into perceptible form events that are unobservable by > human senses, such as indicator dyes, voltmeters, spectrometers, > infrared cameras, oscilloscopes, interferometers, geiger counters, x-ray > machines, and radio receivers. > The human senses do not function like a video camcorder, impartially > recording all observations. Human perception occurs by a complex, > unconscious process of abstraction, in which certain details of the > incoming sense data are noticed and remembered, and the rest forgotten. > What is kept and what is thrown away depends on an internal model or > representation of the world, called by psychologists a schema, that is > built up over our entire lives. The data is fitted into this schema. > Later when events are remembered, memory gaps may even be filled by > "plausible" data the mind makes up to fit the model; this is called > reconstructive memory. How much attention the various perceived data are > given depends on an internal value system, which judges how important it > is to the individual. Thus two people can view the same event and come > away with entirely different perceptions of it, even disagreeing about > simple facts. This is why eyewitness testimony is notoriously > unreliable. > Human observations are biased toward confirming the observer's conscious > and unconscious expectations and view of the world; we "see what we > expect to see". In psychology, this is called confirmation bias. Since > the object of scientific research is the discovery of new phenomena, > this bias can and has caused new discoveries to be overlooked. One > example is the discovery of x-rays. It can also result in erroneous > scientific support for widely held cultural myths, for example the > scientific racism that supported ideas of racial superiority in the > early 20th century. Correct scientific technique emphasizes careful > recording of observations, separating experimental observations from the > conclusions drawn from them, and techniques such as blind or double > blind experiments, to minimize observational bias. > Another bias, which has become more prevalent with the advent of "big > science" and the large rewards of new discoveries, is bias in favor of > the researcher's desired hypothesis or outcome; we "see what we want to > see". Called pathological science and cargo cult science, this is > different from deliberate falsification of results, and can happen to > good-faith researchers. Researchers with a great incentive or desire for > a given outcome can misinterpret or misjudge results, or even persuade > themselves they have seen something they haven't. Possible examples of > mistaken discoveries caused by this bias are Martian "canals", N rays, > polywater, cold fusion, and perpetual motion machines. Recent decades > have seen scientific scandals caused by researchers playing "fast and > loose" with observational methods in order to get their pet theories > published. This type of bias is rampant in pseudoscience, where correct > scientific techniques are not followed. The main defense against this > bias, besides correct research techniques, is peer review and repetition > of the experiment, or the observation, by other researchers with no > incentive to bias. For example, an emerging practice in the competitive > field of biotechnology is to require the physical results of > experiments, such as serums and tissue cultures, be made available to > competing laboratories for independent testing. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104136 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
