[RRod]

No, you really couldn't. Kiryu et al cover a superset of tests including Ōhashi's and show conclusively that Ōhashi's conclusions were based on incomplete data and providing further evidence that contradicted those conclusions. There is no way that you could reverse this and say that Ōhashi refutes Kiryu.
It's pretty clear if a paper debunks another, because it replicates the previous behaviour but then builds on that giving evidence that refutes the theory and conclusions of the previous paper. Going back to Popper:

"Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory."

 
In a forum environment, like Joe pointed out at the outset, you're dealing with parties who don't know the literature in such ways. So yes, I think it is wise if people who do, instead of just saying "burden of proof", point to these kind of refutations as well. And your Popper quote is exactly what I'm getting at: it's hard to "establish facts that are inconsistent with the theory" when people reject, outright, your method of establishing facts.

 

[cel4145]

The burden of proof link and scientific method posts are not in conflict. Whilst KeithEmo gave a good high school example of the scientific method, it didn’t defend the requirement for burden of proof. Steve Eddy was correct in that for a scientific theory to be accepted then the theory must be able to make predictions which are then validated experimentally. This is the falsifiability principle introduced by Karl Popper. Without that validation it is not considered an accepted theory.

That's not accurate. I think you are conflating a theory being proven with a theory being accepted. The scientific community works by consensus, and sometimes the community accepts the plausibility of a theory based on the reasoning behind it when the theory has not been validated.

 

[castleofargh]

 

No, you really couldn't. Kiryu et al cover a superset of tests including Ōhashi's and show conclusively that Ōhashi's conclusions were based on incomplete data and providing further evidence that contradicted those conclusions. There is no way that you could reverse this and say that Ōhashi refutes Kiryu.
It's pretty clear if a paper debunks another, because it replicates the previous behaviour but then builds on that giving evidence that refutes the theory and conclusions of the previous paper. Going back to Popper:

"Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory."

 
In a forum environment, like Joe pointed out at the outset, you're dealing with parties who don't know the literature in such ways. So yes, I think it is wise if people who do, instead of just saying "burden of proof", point to these kind of refutations as well. And your Popper quote is exactly what I'm getting at: it's hard to "establish facts that are inconsistent with the theory" when people reject, outright, your method of establishing facts.

 
you guys are talking about  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect  to point that those guys may need help even to understand what they claimed themselves. and you're right, but admit that the irony is pretty massive.
anyway, sure we'll explain and suggest methods of testing and point out to data. that's what we already do for any reasonable guy. but there is no point pretending to be talking science and facts if we don't explain first the "rules" of science. IMO at least 2 things should be made strikingly clear from the very beginning to people coming to discuss a subject in SS:
 
- 1/ burden of proof, so that we don't waste 3 pages with the guy asking us to disprove his claim. which will happen anyway and force somebody to explain the burden of proof in the middle of everything else. it's getting old and serves no purpose avoiding it at the start.
 
- 2/ if I make a claim, I must at least agree on one rational testing method. the guys coming to SS to make a technical claim and then reject all of the accepted test methods, they should G.T.F.O. anybody entering sound science should be informed that you don't make a claim for something you yourself believe can't be proved. because then we're talking about faith, not science and most certainly not fact. and faith should stay in the faith subsection(everywhere else).
 
then for all those who understand and accept those 2 points, I'm very willing to give all the help and calm empathy I can muster. but I'm really fed up with all those who never comply with those 2 points and still pretend to tell us all how wrong we are because they know, they heard it from the kitchen.

 
the burden of proof is but a spam filter to make sure the guy is ready to science.

 

[cel4145]

- 1/ burden of proof, so that we don't waste 3 pages with the guy asking us to disprove his claim. which will happen anyway and force somebody to explain the burden of proof in the middle of everything else. it's getting old and serves no purpose avoiding it at the start.

You shouldn't even have to say that, though. It's standard in any serious discourse--not just science--to expect claims to be supported by evidence.

 

[arnyk]

You shouldn't even have to say that, though. It's standard in any serious discourse--not just science--to expect claims to be supported by evidence.

 
Unfortunately, in audio the support is frequently a form of alleged testing that: 
 
(1) Is actually not even a proper test.
 
(2) Is packed to bursting and beyond with confusing influences.
 
(3) Is time-honored and quite blithely widely used.