beeman458
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Posts
- 988
- Likes
- 22
Shike wrote:
First, I'd appreciate you citing these peer reviewed medical studies you keep bringing up.
No, I'm not going do a full paper on what's common knowledge in the medical field. Check out a few medical studies for your own personal edification.
As I wrote, try keeping responses short as I can't do ever lengthening tit-for-tat exchanges.
Prog Rock Man wrote:
But in the case of cables you claim to be able to hear a difference, but I say that it is you having sight of the cables, not hearing is what makes the difference. So I do a test where you cannot see the cables anymore to find out if you really can hear a difference, then my proof is correct.
It doesn't matter that a person can't see the cables. The evaluation standards of plus seventy percent correct identification guarantees fail. Human senses, when at the extremes of their abilities, might exhibit only ten or twenty percent accuracy before they fail completely. When you set the bar so high, that it exceeds the rational analogue nature of the human sensory system to detect a difference, you guarantee the results will come back fail. No where in the world is this standard accepted as rational work place conditions but some how this standard applies here.
What I find galling, is that you so called "sound science" types aren't calling people on this point. It's common knowledge that humans have an analogue sensory system. It's common knowledge that as the sensory system is stressed, the level of one hundred percent detection drops in an analogue fashion. And it's also common knowledge that human detection ranges will dependably drop into the ten or twenty percent range before total fail occurs And yet, with this as common knowledge and the fact that the bar is set unrealistically high, coupled with the fact that you guys don't call foul, shows that you're wanting fail to occur, thereby showing extreme prejudice of nature, or bias. Talk about walking into a load of who-ie.
When you guys want to come up to where reality meets the road, then you'll have some play. Until then, you're just a bunch of bias test givers who have some sort of pseudo science agenda going on to make you guys fell good about yourselves.
But hey, we'll always have beer.
First, I'd appreciate you citing these peer reviewed medical studies you keep bringing up.
No, I'm not going do a full paper on what's common knowledge in the medical field. Check out a few medical studies for your own personal edification.
As I wrote, try keeping responses short as I can't do ever lengthening tit-for-tat exchanges.
Prog Rock Man wrote:
But in the case of cables you claim to be able to hear a difference, but I say that it is you having sight of the cables, not hearing is what makes the difference. So I do a test where you cannot see the cables anymore to find out if you really can hear a difference, then my proof is correct.
It doesn't matter that a person can't see the cables. The evaluation standards of plus seventy percent correct identification guarantees fail. Human senses, when at the extremes of their abilities, might exhibit only ten or twenty percent accuracy before they fail completely. When you set the bar so high, that it exceeds the rational analogue nature of the human sensory system to detect a difference, you guarantee the results will come back fail. No where in the world is this standard accepted as rational work place conditions but some how this standard applies here.
What I find galling, is that you so called "sound science" types aren't calling people on this point. It's common knowledge that humans have an analogue sensory system. It's common knowledge that as the sensory system is stressed, the level of one hundred percent detection drops in an analogue fashion. And it's also common knowledge that human detection ranges will dependably drop into the ten or twenty percent range before total fail occurs And yet, with this as common knowledge and the fact that the bar is set unrealistically high, coupled with the fact that you guys don't call foul, shows that you're wanting fail to occur, thereby showing extreme prejudice of nature, or bias. Talk about walking into a load of who-ie.
When you guys want to come up to where reality meets the road, then you'll have some play. Until then, you're just a bunch of bias test givers who have some sort of pseudo science agenda going on to make you guys fell good about yourselves.
But hey, we'll always have beer.