Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

So again, your claim is that blind auditions are invalid, thus the resulting large shift is gender is from flawed non-level matched testing, women having played louder than men.

 

You've now wasted two posts trying to mischaracterize my quite simple statement, which is that the validity of blind tests depends on how they are conducted.  Any problems with sighted tests make blind tests no more valid; they must rise or fall on their own.

 

Thus whether blind auditions are valid depends on the circumstances of each blind audition and how it relates to what's auditioned for.  This has nothing to do with whether sighted auditions are valid.

 

An example of a blind audition that might be problematic would be an audition of solo material for people vying for a job that would not involve being a soloist, but rather the ability to play in close coordination with others.

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 the validity of blind tests depends on how they are conducted.

Only a strawman argued differently

 

Quote

Any problems with sighted tests make blind tests no more valid; they must rise or fall on their own.

Classic audiophile false equivalence fallacy.

No one is arguing for invalid blind tests, but a lot of folks are arguing for invalid sighted tests

[Jud]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Classic audiophile false equivalence fallacy.

No one is arguing for invalid blind tests, but a lot of folks are arguing for invalid sighted tests

 

That's interesting, since an inadequately controlled blind test of violins was one of your references for the proposition that blind tests for audio are scientifically valid.

 

You also referenced two examples of sighted bias being removed.  Did you also make an independent investigation of the validity of the blind auditions for the jobs auditioned for that I somehow missed?

[AJ Soundfield]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

an inadequately controlled blind test of violins

Please provide evidence for claim of inadequacy

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check

Multiple tests in link. Please be specific

Quote

You also referenced two examples of sighted bias being removed.  Did you also make an independent investigation of the validity of the blind auditions for the jobs auditioned for that I somehow missed?

Ok, so you are now unambiguously saying all blind (musician) auditions are invalid (no "level matching") and player skill cannot be determined unless player is visible

[Jud]

5 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

What Karl Popper used to describe a tendency in the social sciences to slavishly emulate what they (wrongly) perceived as being the aims and methods of the physical sciences.

 

Feynman used the term Cargo Cult Sciences.

 

Feynman's term, though not as snappy as "scientism," really gets to the idea that, like cargo cults, some folks like to "collect" aspects of some scientific experiments without a great understanding of the role those aspects play.

 

Perfectly valid non-blinded scientific and medical tests are done every day, some involving human judgment (e.g., reading mammograms, though machines are getting better at the pattern recognition needed for that task, and may at this point be superior to humans).  The fundamental scientific idea is not blinding, but controlling for variables.  If sighted bias is one of the variables, it should be removed if at all possible.  But unless that is the *only* variable, your work isn't done if you want a valid test.

[Jud]

 

3 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Ok, so you are now unambiguously saying all blind (musician) auditions are invalid (no "level matching") and player skill cannot be determined unless player is visible

 

Oh dear.  If you must mischaracterize what I've said to that extent, why are you bothering at all, except to be argumentative?

[christopher3393]

8 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Apparently because they are soft targets it's not welcome here. Not sure what kind of position the subjectivists needs to take for debate and dialectic with them to be kosher at CA.

 

8 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

How about starting here?

"4. Individually, remember to stay gracious"  ---Archimago, "On Being an Audiophile, Rationality, and Respectability (Thoughts on the Hardware Audiophile Hobby)"

he also writes: "Mature people discuss things calmly."

 

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/05/musings-on-being-audiophile-rationality.html

 

"Debate and dialectic" is something we could discuss, what they are and what are good rules of thumb for practice. I'm curious what you mean by those terms  and how you have learned these practices. It has been my impression that your understading of what is meant by them may be a bit subjectively biased toward your own preferred approach, but I could be wrong.

 

I've practiced debate formally. I'm sure others have here as well. I'm not sure that this type of debate is what we want here. Debate has its place when needed, as does dialectic, which I'd at least like to think that I've studied i(and attempted to practice) in some depth. I would prefer a more conversational approach generally for this forum, but am open to exploration.

 

plissken, no insight into your method to offer? I would think that you especially, who protests so much when members don't respond to your challenges, would at least reply. I'm becoming skeptical. Are you bluffing? Is your approach to posting actually more scatter-gun, reactive, selective, i.e., subjective? I think we could all live with a confession to honey-badger dialectic.  

[Jud]

5 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

I was thinking more of the assumption that the scientific method trumps other ways of knowing....

 

I'm quite fond of the scientific method as a way of knowing.

[AJ Soundfield]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

Oh dear.  If you must mischaracterize what I've said to that extent, why are you bothering at all, except to be argumentative?

So that's a no for invalid violin tests evidence and also a yes for blind musician skill auditions are worthless due to level mismatching.

Ok 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So that a no for invalid violin tests evidence and also a yes for blind musician auditions are worthless due to level mismatching.

Ok 

 

Ah, a smiley face.  More humor?

 

A continued quite deliberate failure to deal with what I've actually said, though.  I'm not sure why any of it should be a problem for you.  I've seen you now three or four times say I'm making a claim I'm not, and you haven't yet mentioned what I actually did say about a potential problem with blind auditions.

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

what I actually did say about a potential problem with blind auditions.

Oh, "potential" problems.

How about specific ones invalidating these

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

 

 10 hours ago, firedog said:

I'm doubtful about the efficacy of blind listening tests in practice.

 

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

http://www.upworthy.com/this-orchestras-blind-audition-proves-bias-sneaks-in-when-you-least-expect-it

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

 

TIA

[christopher3393]

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm quite fond of the scientific method as a way of knowing.

 

Do you prefer it to all other means of human knowledge? Do you think it is superior and should be the guiding light to all other fields of knowledge? This is what I understand to be generally intended by scientism. It is my opinion that this generally leads to intolerance of other approaches. I think we see some of that here at times. Never quite sure. And of course we see a cornicopia of intolerance from a number of perspectives at times. 

 

As to fondness, you do fucking love science don't you, whereas I tend to hate fucking science. Working on it.

[plissken]

13 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

plissken, no insight into your method to offer? I would think that you especially, who protests so much when members don't respond to your challenges, would at least reply. I'm becoming skeptical. Are you bluffing? Is your approach to posting actually more scatter-gun, reactive, selective, i.e., subjective? I think we could all live with that as the honey-badger dialectic.  

 

So let me get this correct:

 

Under certain circumstances I've offered a bounty, no one has taken me up on it, and *I'm* the one bluffing?

 

I'm selective/objective. You should be able to take that away from posting if you've seen the papers and video's I've cited as sources for my understanding.

 

IMO dialectic isn't possible here because subjectivists won't stand for it (controlling for bias etc). So we are left to debate.

 

Sorry: What insight into what method?

 

 

[christopher3393]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

IMO dialectic isn't possible here because subjectivists won't stand for it (controlling for bias etc). So we are left to debate.

 

OK. Can you explain what dialectic and debate are and what distinction you are making between them and where you acquired this understanding? (Hint: you are on thin ice.) Otherwise, please use language you are comfortable with to explain what you mean. Am I being a bit devilish. You bet. 

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

Oh, "potential" problems.

How about specific ones invalidating these

 

 

TIA

 

I already responded several times about the violin test, so no need to repeat myself there.

 

With regard to the blind auditions, you may have forgotten: You said these supported the scientific effectiveness of blind testing.  You'd be the one making the claim.  That seems to me to make you the one responsible for coming up with supporting evidence, yes?

 

All I said about the blind auditions (repeatedly) was that the articles pointed out problems with sighted auditions, and the fact that there is a bias problem with sighted auditions doesn't prove blind auditions are valid.  Apparently you feel these articles show positive evidence of scientific validity that I'm not seeing.  Thus if you wished to respond to what I've actually said, once again, your time to come up with positive evidence of scientific validity.

[plissken]

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Ah, a smiley face.  More humor?

 

A continued quite deliberate failure to deal with what I've actually said, though.  I'm not sure why any of it should be a problem for you.  I've seen you now three or four times say I'm making a claim I'm not, and you haven't yet mentioned what I actually did say about a potential problem with blind auditions.

 

You could simply try reading what AJ is saying. You seem to be deflecting and AJ putting it right on the chin.

[jabbr]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

Feynman's term, though not as snappy as "scientism," really gets to the idea that, like cargo cults, some folks like to "collect" aspects of some scientific experiments without a great understanding of the role those aspects play.

Yes!. I've previously used the term "scientism" to refer to Feynman's description, whereas the Popper definition is closer to how the term is actually used: that all knowledge derives from science

 

-- regarding medical tests -- I'm not sure they are all what I would call "scientific" themselves even though we hope that the basis of doing the test is scientific. For example when the FDA approves a drug, it is on the basis of a "scientific" study. Subsequent prescription of the drug I don't call scientific, but hopefully based on science.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

 

OK. Can you explain what these are and what distinction you are making? (Hint: you are on thin ice.)

 

Dialetic is two parties attempting to come to the truth of the matter. It doesn't seem possible here because of the rejection of common methods of determining the positive or negative outcomes of claims.

 

I test claims.

[Jud]

Just now, plissken said:

 

You could simply try reading what AJ is saying. You seem to be deflecting and AJ putting it right on the chin.

 

Perhaps you haven't been following the conversation from the beginning?

[christopher3393]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

that all knowledge derives from science

yeah, that's the offending fallacy.

[plissken]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

All I said about the blind auditions (repeatedly) was that the articles pointed out problems with sighted auditions, and the fact that there is a bias problem with sighted auditions doesn't prove blind auditions are valid.  Apparently you feel these articles show positive evidence of scientific validity that I'm not seeing.  Thus if you wished to respond to what I've actually said, once again, your time to come up with positive evidence of scientific validity.

 

I read the same articles you did Jud. I have to say your interpretation of the results are baffling. I'm sure the female musicians would disagree with your summation of the outcomes.

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Dialetic is two parties attempting to come to the truth of the matter. It doesn't seem possible here because of the rejection of common methods of determining the positive or negative outcomes of claims.

 

I test claims.

 

Would you pay me $10,000 if we have an argument and I can prove myself correct with scientific testing? I would find that motivating if the proof isn't too difficult  $100,000 for a more difficult proof -- now we are talking  

 

cable testing? -- meh

 

we can let @Jud be the judge

 

(hey @Jud -- 10%?)

 

[Jud]

Just now, plissken said:

 

I read the same articles you did Jud. I have to say your interpretation of the results are baffling. I'm sure the female musicians would disagree.

 

So having doubts about the validity of the violin test because those selected appear to be the loudest ones is "baffling" to you?  Would you have no doubt about the validity of an A/B test that wasn't level matched?  If you would think there's a possibility the louder one might have an advantage, then why does my thinking the same thing baffle you?

 

With regard to the auditions: Do you believe that making the auditions blind removes any and all possible problems with them?  I don't.  Is this baffling?

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I already responded several times about the violin test

With zero reasons for invalid

 

Quote

With regard to the blind auditions, you may have forgotten: You said these supported the scientific effectiveness of blind testing.

Not forgotten. The results are orchestras that reflect the population diversity one would expect statistically..

Unless you believe the only good musicians are white males as believed prior to blind testing. Which of course you reject as valid.

 

Quote

the fact that there is a bias problem with sighted auditions doesn't prove blind auditions are valid.

So what do you suggest to address the sighted bias problem?

[jabbr]

12 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I read the same articles you did Jud. I have to say your interpretation of the results are baffling. I'm sure the female musicians would disagree with your summation of the outcomes.

Of course. If the goal is to produce 50% females, and the order of play is 50/50 m/f and the play order bias is such that the second performer is always picked, then those female musicians would be very happy.

 

Who said the orchestras are intending to perform a scientific study during tryouts? Really?

Conductors, concertmasters, guest performers? Y'know the really important stuff like getting Yo-Yo Ma or Midori to come perform so you can sell out the house. That's.done.with.science? Is that what we are really arguing here?