Originally Posted by Zanth
Wrong. This is not only accomplished via double-blind testing. This unfortunately is the major fallacy pushed on everyone by blinded objectivists, or rather reductionists. Seriously, do you know what emergence is? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm asking legitimately. Everything hinges on the understanding between reductionism and emergence. You are clearly in the reductionist camp.
Of course I know what emergence is. Are you saying there is some kind of emergent property arising from the auditory system that allows for these superhuman feats of audition?
Perhaps I incorrectly worded my paragraph. Of course we should refine our testing procedures and try to control as many variables as we possibly can. What I was really getting at is the assertions by subjectivists that no DBT is ever good enough for them. There is always something
wrong with it. The room was too hot, I was too hungry, the chair was hurting my ass, the testers made me feel nervous, ad nauseum. How far do we have to go to please them before they are satisfied? Or perhaps the real question is, is it even possible to do so? You say that the current type of DBT is not working, this is utter nonsense. It seems to always work properly and do its job well except
when dealing with audio enthusiasts. You never see these kinds of arguments among other enthusiast circles. Take wine enthusiasts, for example. There, DBT is not only accepted, but encouraged and even demanded. You never see people making long-winded arguments about emergence versus reductionism, or muddying the waters with diatribes about how science was in the dark ages. Not only that, but experienced oenophiles can reliably and repeatably
pass double-blind tests.
But with audiophiles, it is nothing but complaints, excuses, and even outright refusal. I'm sure there are very interesting psychological reasons for this.