[Happy Camper]

We often times get tied up in discussions about science and the efforts to understand our hobby. Often it comes down to opinion and links to sometimes dubious articles that provide a person's opinion.

Do we have members that work in the audio industry that have published papers on topics we commonly debate? If so, could you be kind and post here?

 

[Steve Eddy]

I haven't any, but think it's worth noting that published articles aren't necessarily any gold standard of truth. For example, many AES papers are just preprints. These are papers that are presented at conventions and don't go through the peer review process that actual journal articles have to go through. And of course even stuff that passes peer review isn't iron clad. Ultimately it's the argument that should make the argument, whether it has been published or not.

se

 

[esldude]

I haven't any, but think it's worth noting that published articles aren't necessarily any gold standard of truth. For example, many AES papers are just preprints. These are papers that are presented at conventions and don't go through the peer review process that actual journal articles have to go through. And of course even stuff that passes peer review isn't iron clad. Ultimately it's the argument that should make the argument, whether it has been published or not.

se

But what about reputation, commercial credibility, academic credibility,  curriculum vitae, experience, reputation (yes twice), and nebulous human judgment?  Are you inhumane or just crazy?  Make the argument make the argument you say......?  What lunacy is this? 
 
Those without the ability to make an argument will find themselves defenseless against the argument based onslaught.  This is not kind or courteous.  You would probably call someone wrong when they are wrong rather than allow every opinion to matter equally no matter which human decision making shortcut was employed.  How rude of you to suggest such a methodology. 
 
Most human decision making shortcuts work most of the time, and more often than not.  Why not let most of the time be given primacy to use them as if infallible, and inerrant.  Everyone feels better than way, and humans are based upon their feelings not their logical argumentative thoughts.  This is simpler than more detailed thinking and I am sure you can hardly help, but agree....simpler is better.

 

[Steve Eddy]

But what about reputation, commercial credibility, academic credibility,  curriculum vitae, experience, reputation (yes twice), and nebulous human judgment?  Are you inhumane or just crazy?  Make the argument make the argument you say......?  What lunacy is this? 

Those without the ability to make an argument will find themselves defenseless against the argument based onslaught.  This is not kind or courteous.  You would probably call someone wrong when they are wrong rather than allow every opinion to matter equally no matter which human decision making shortcut was employed.  How rude of you to suggest such a methodology. 

Most human decision making shortcuts work most of the time, and more often than not.  Why not let most of the time be given primacy to use them as if infallible, and inerrant.  Everyone feels better than way, and humans are based upon their feelings not their logical argumentative thoughts.  This is simpler than more detailed thinking and I am sure you can hardly help, but agree....simpler is better.

...
...
...

These amps go to 11.



se

 

[nick_charles]

I haven't any, but think it's worth noting that published articles aren't necessarily any gold standard of truth. For example, many AES papers are just preprints. These are papers that are presented at conventions and don't go through the peer review process that actual journal articles have to go through. And of course even stuff that passes peer review isn't iron clad. Ultimately it's the argument that should make the argument, whether it has been published or not.

se

 
Even conference papers (for half-decent conferences anyway) go through a peer review process, I've just finished reviewing papers for a popular but far from selective (50%) conference, some conferences have acceptance levels below 30% . It is myth that any old rubbish can be accepted as a conference paper, admittedly some crap does get through but at least it has gone past reviewers...
 
As for the peer-review process, for conferences it is mostly "is it interesting", "will it spark debate" and "does it check all the boxes" rather than is it incontrovertible evidence, still peer review even for conferences should pick up obvious blunders and peer review for journals is even tougher , some journals have acceptance rates of less than 10% - of course it is the nature of some fields that nonsense gets through sometimes but generally it will be well-formatted nonsense with the right stats