Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!bmaraldo From: bmaraldo@watdcsu.UUCP Newsgroups: rec.audio,sci.physics,sci.electronics Subject: Re: Double-blind tests Message-ID: <3849@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> Date: Wed, 16-Sep-87 10:37:09 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3849 Posted: Wed Sep 16 10:37:09 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Sep-87 04:55:43 EDT References: <3827@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> <551@unisoft.UUCP> <3837@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> <1858@ucbcad.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: bmaraldo@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) Organization: Unit 36 Research Lines: 36 Xref: utgpu rec.audio:2765 sci.physics:2084 sci.electronics:1175 In article <1858@ucbcad.berkeley.edu> max@eros.UUCP (Max Hauser) writes: > All double-blind testing really requires is honesty and sincerity. Then you say... > Just don't claim that you can hear a difference without being prepared > to back it up. In order to present the results of a subjective analysis, it is important to prepare the analytic procedure such that you can convince any number of people that you have proceeded in a scientific method. The double-blind test is a scientific method; honesty and sincerity do not enter the picture. Example: 'I performed a double-blind test in which I ABXed two speaker systems. I identified speaker A 15/16 trials.' - this is a typical example of the verbiage used to document many such 'double-blind' test procedures. It is honest and scincer, but it lacks description of scientific method. This is the format many documented double-blind testare found in. It is inadequate as it shows no evidence of scientific methods or procedures; only objectivism and naivete to scientific method. I assume that honesty and sincerity are inherent in a test report. I expect process and implementation to be explained in detail; only then can I take a report seriously. Brett L Maraldo prepare the -- -------- Unit 36 Research --------- "Alien Technology Today" ------------------------------------------- bmaraldo@watdcsu