Re: Ludwig: Commentary on Mc book by Kessler

On 3 Iul, 19:56, "ScottW" <Scott...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


Again, ScottW, we have an instance where I have
practical knowledge of something whereas you only
know what you have read on the Internets but somehow
still feel your opinion has weight. First, there was the
topic of blind tests, which you have never taken part in
but I have;

and I posted my issues with your test and you
neglected to reply.   Funny how that works.
But, FWIW, the statistics in blind tests are very
similar to reliability testing, something I am very
experienced with.


No they are not. The mechanics and methodology
of the statistics are similar, but the purpose for which the
staistics is used is quite different,, the meaning of the results
of those statistics is different, and the use to
which they are put is much different.

For example, in doing DBT for the purpose of
your own consumer selection, it is absolutely ludicrous
and nonsensical to use a standard of 95 % confidence
Your consumer choice should be based upon the
predonderance of the evidence. Say, you do a test on
a piece you ahve and a piece you are thinking of getting,
and the result is with 80% certainty that
you can tell a difference
. say you take that result and decide NOT to investigate
the new piece for possible qualitative imporovements through
comparative listening, because you didn't meet the 95% threshhold.
What you have done is eliminate consideration'of a piece where you
were
80% confident you could here a difference.
That is, you were shown that it is much more likely than not that you
heard a difference.
Yet, by blind adherence to scientific standards, you blundered
into stupidly eliminating consideration of something that was much
more likely
than not different sounding than your current piece.

The point is, you need to have some common sense and perspective
rearding you ultimate purpose
for these investigations., and even if you choose
to proceed with these methods, use them
in harmony with your goals and purposes.
You are NOT sending a man to the moon.
You are only selecting the best sounding stereo.
Don't reject something jut because you are less
than 95% sure.



And then there is this:

 People can claim many things, but bowing to silly claims
and threats of lawsuits as the just and proper thing to do
as you apparently claim, is nonsense.



THANK YOU JESUS!!!!!!!!

you seem to be against the use of lawsuits as 'threats'.
since it is nonsense to bow to them.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down
    ... It wasn't meant to be or to stay heavy weight. ... > kernel group can fix this issues and not log statistics for the purpose ... it started as statistics code of a device driver. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Ludwig: Commentary on Mc book by Kessler
    ... Again, ScottW, we have an instance where I have ... But, FWIW, the statistics in blind tests are very ... but the purpose for which the ... :you seem to be against the use of lawsuits as 'threats'. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Liskov Substitution Principle and Abstract Factories
    ... Statistics is just a way to do something you know to be ... The probability is not 0. ... for almost any purpose. ... ClientAdd have to be a member of Real. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: In the News: High school teacher found guilty of insulting
    ... teach that creationism/ID is SCIENTIFIC nonsense. ... support any religion, ... What is a "secular purpose"? ... Creationism can be shown to be superstitious nonsense, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 2nd question
    ... >>>Complete nonsense as most people don't have any goals. ... Life is a rather useless at first sight God's gift, ... >> purpose that defines us, it the purpose that drives us". ...
    (soc.culture.russian)
Loading