I know. Running around in circles about the actual issue and focusing their attention on unimportant minutiae. All in an attempt to score a point, trying to remain relevant, whilst dodging the heart of the matter.
The dance presented here has thoroughly convinced me that anyone with supposed credentials would not behave in the manner put forth......I guess this wasn’t a total waste of time, I now surely know what delusion of grandeur looks like.
Let me help....... No you are, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you! Pathetic comes to mind.
And another thing, at least we know who JC is and his accomplishments precede him
Let me help....... No you are, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you! Pathetic comes to mind.
And another thing, at least we know who JC is and his accomplishments precede him
FWIW I would suggest that ego often plays a significant role in this forum that is to the detriment of the discussion always. The world of science is peppered with errors, failures and even accidents from which better understanding arises. To be proved wrong should be regarded as progress rather than the subject of shame. It appears to me that subjective testing cannot adhere to such principles, however.
In this thread, for example, there was discussion of an idea put forward by a highly respected professor who was one of my mentors and someone that I regard as a long-standing personal friend. The idea was rebutted thoroughly, primarily by someone else I also regard as a friend of many years. Nevertheless, both the suggestion and the rebuttal are credible pieces of research to be applauded. The suggested model might have been proven wrong, but up until that point it was "allowed" by the prevailing science and required admirable insight to develop. Nobody was therefore incorrect or deserving of personal attack.
To that end, as I have stated previously, I welcome constructive criticism of all my contributions and I have no problem with admitting my errors if a better model emerges. There is no "grandeur" intended and I have apologised if reading my musings causes difficulty. So if anyone has anything of relevance to add, then please fire away!
But as I have pointed out previously, there exists an issue with any such progressive approach where subjective responses are not supported by objective findings (although please note my previously expressed reservations concerning blind testing, which rather oddly spawned no objections from the "fundamental" objectivists). So I ask again, how can someone who maintains they can hear what should be inaudible ever admit they cannot hear what another such person says they can hear?
In this thread, for example, there was discussion of an idea put forward by a highly respected professor who was one of my mentors and someone that I regard as a long-standing personal friend. The idea was rebutted thoroughly, primarily by someone else I also regard as a friend of many years. Nevertheless, both the suggestion and the rebuttal are credible pieces of research to be applauded. The suggested model might have been proven wrong, but up until that point it was "allowed" by the prevailing science and required admirable insight to develop. Nobody was therefore incorrect or deserving of personal attack.
To that end, as I have stated previously, I welcome constructive criticism of all my contributions and I have no problem with admitting my errors if a better model emerges. There is no "grandeur" intended and I have apologised if reading my musings causes difficulty. So if anyone has anything of relevance to add, then please fire away!
But as I have pointed out previously, there exists an issue with any such progressive approach where subjective responses are not supported by objective findings (although please note my previously expressed reservations concerning blind testing, which rather oddly spawned no objections from the "fundamental" objectivists). So I ask again, how can someone who maintains they can hear what should be inaudible ever admit they cannot hear what another such person says they can hear?
Last edited:
An experiment...
Double blind testing (or like procedure) is insufficient to show subjective findings are false (delusional) due to the failure of such procedures to account for hysteretic non-linearity in the test subjects.
Anyone disagree with that?
Double blind testing (or like procedure) is insufficient to show subjective findings are false (delusional) due to the failure of such procedures to account for hysteretic non-linearity in the test subjects.
Anyone disagree with that?
Thank you for stepping off the high horse.
That last question is a bit puzzling though.....it may be plain English but yet is still going to need some translation!
Should be inaudible? As per what standards, average human hearing?
And if I can’t hear something I can’t hear it, got no problem with that.......are you saying the subject would fabricate a response just to be noticed?
The things I discuss on this forum are an attempt to understand what I’m hearing, sometimes I’ll hear something with no clue as to what it might be, then find a plausible explanation, mention it and the barrage of impossibilities overwhelm.
Unless one is just plain sadistic I see no reason to inflict such agony on ones self just to be part of a crowd......a very small one at that.
It’s a heavy burden......you science jockeys should consider it a challenge instead of dismissing it as psychotic delusion.
Google is your friend Matt.
That last question is a bit puzzling though.....it may be plain English but yet is still going to need some translation!
Should be inaudible? As per what standards, average human hearing?
And if I can’t hear something I can’t hear it, got no problem with that.......are you saying the subject would fabricate a response just to be noticed?
The things I discuss on this forum are an attempt to understand what I’m hearing, sometimes I’ll hear something with no clue as to what it might be, then find a plausible explanation, mention it and the barrage of impossibilities overwhelm.
Unless one is just plain sadistic I see no reason to inflict such agony on ones self just to be part of a crowd......a very small one at that.
It’s a heavy burden......you science jockeys should consider it a challenge instead of dismissing it as psychotic delusion.
Google is your friend Matt.
I don't ride.
The question is simple. Does anyone here contend that double-blind testing results can show that some subjective finding is inaudible?
That is not relevant to the question. The question applies to anyone who reports they can hear something, and of particular relevance here, something that alludes objective verification.
I have specifically avoided suggesting anybody is deliberately fabricating anything. Instead I have pointed out that there exists the possibility that a person's motivations might promote delusion.
The notion of delusion is not born of dismissal, but of scientific enquiry.
It hasn't helped me in finding any of your references.
I'd like to know what you are refering to not what Google chooses to point me at
This.....what does ‘should be inaudible’ mean? Highly relevant to me.
You say the bybees should not be audible (actually straight up ‘not audible’) yet they do measure with resistance and inductance......last I knew R L in either line level or speaker level causes measureable change.
Maybe you assume these changes are below human perception therefore irrelevant?
Last edited:
It depends on the details. In principle it could work, but there are pitfalls and confounders to deal with. If one chooses to be dismissive of them then the effort would be doomed to failure.
"Should be inaudible" refers to a subjective finding that is not supported by objective measures (prior or post the subjective report). It is not relevant to my question, however.
There is no principle of whether it could work or otherwise. It was a simple statement inviting objections. And until you can establish some credibility by making clear the "inumerous errant assumptions" you said that I have made and that I have frequently asked you to elucidate (or retract), I do not consider your contributions to be worthy of further consideration.
As per my above edit......maybe those more sensitive to micro detail (for lack of better words) can perceive what you (or others) deem inaudible?
Btw......your credibility seems nothing but self imposed here-say?
Btw......your credibility seems nothing but self imposed here-say?
Last edited:
You have missed the point completely. My question was simply to see if stating a flaw in the "fundamental" objectivist's argument would elicit a similar outpouring as does pointing out a flaw in the "fundamental" subjectivist camp. A response instead from two rooted in the subjectivist camp has left me both bemused and amused!
Find the flaws in my contributions if you want to doubt my credibility,
I’m not rooted in either ‘camp’ and neither is mark from what I can tell.
You again act as though there is no middle ground
Edit; now that is surely amusing...... Comes across as “trust me, I’m right!”
You again act as though there is no middle ground
Edit; now that is surely amusing...... Comes across as “trust me, I’m right!”
Last edited:
IMO, you make them constantly. Others can form their own opinions, obviously some are starting to.
Look, your true colors have come out. You are not an objective scientist on this topic, you have already taken a side and already drawn firm conclusions. For one example, you never asked if there was more than one type of Bybee, you never asked under what conditions which particular Bybees were believed to produce audible effects, etc. You lack scientific curiosity on the subject. I told you your mind was made up, and it is. And, yes, you might change it later or you might ask for more and more research, finding fault with every paper that comes you way. It happens, don't think you are immune.
By the way, Phil Tetlock described the situation here quite astutely, the situation not unique to this topic. You missed a lot skipping over most of psychology, although you described yourself as being far past that (or to such effect).
Dare I mention potential for delusion again.
That is absurd. You will find all my posts in this thread concern the middle ground and attempt to make clear the lack of certainty in the assertions stated by both camps. I am unaware of anyone in this discussion that has established their position in the middle ground as blatantly as I have.
Your perception is what it is, but my contributions have never suggested such. You can read back for yourself and see that I have invited criticism many times.