How the Cognitive Biases of Researchers Affect Research Results

[Iving]

Just now, jabbr said:

 

I’m going to disagree as my definition of soft science is a reliance on p values. There’s good soft science when rigorously done. Hard science, to my definition, relies on measurements and theory. 
 

DBX in the audio world is a pipe dream — hard to really do, at best it’s single blinded but folks like to through the terms out. That’s ok this is a hobby, not a new cancer treatment.
 

 

That’s pretty much how electronics engineering works. People learn theory, design a schematic, perhaps run a sim, then build circuits, make measurements, listen, tweak circuits, make measurements, listen ... no DBT involved!

 

OK

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, Iving said:

just for instance/illumination: Real Science in Clear English

you're welcome 🙂

So where do Maxwell’s Equations fit into this? — using as an example — there are a set of equations. Complex electronic networks are built up from these equations. 
 

Top down is understanding the equations, bottom up is making measurements of the network?

[Iving]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

So where do Maxwell’s Equations fit into this? — using as an example — there are a set of equations. Complex electronic networks are built up from these equations. 
 

Top down is understanding the equations, bottom up is making measurements of the network?

 

You are trying to move the ground from under us to avoid staring the unavoidable in the face.

 

If you address the principles in what we have discussed so far, then I'm happy to move on.

 

🙂 x

[alfe]

18 minutes ago, jabbr said:

It’s great to have an actual scientist among us 😊

Shame that he is banned from the objective forum😉

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, alfe said:

Shame that he is banned from the objective forum😉

I object (sic) to the terms “objectivist” and “subjectivist”!

 

All French are somewhat subjectivists, no? 🤔 wonder how that works at the Meson detector on your east coast?

[alfe]

 

All French are somewhat subjectivists, no? 🤔 wonder how that works at the Meson detector on your east coast?

 

If we are talking food definitely yes.

 

 

[alfe]

My joke was not clear, I was referring to our friend who is not allowed to post in objective-Fi😀

[jabbr]

8 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

You are trying to move the ground from under us to avoid staring the unavoidable in the face.

 

Unavoidable? 
 

I am sure that my own world view of science is different than yours. That’s ok. 

8 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

If you address the principles in what we have discussed so far, then I'm happy to move on.

 

🙂 x

Which principles? 

[jabbr]

12 minutes ago, alfe said:

My joke was not clear, I was referring to our friend who is not allowed to post in objective-Fi😀

 

 

Doh! 😂 

 

I was imagining you sipping Armagnac and enjoying listening to ... whatever... through glowing tube amps and cryo treated speaker cables!!! (and would be perfectly ok )

[Iving]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Unavoidable?

Which principles? 

 

Are you serious? I can only spell out what is already before us.

 

OK

 

1. You said, "Jud mentioned cryo treatments for cables etc ... suppose someone wants to analyze this scientifically ...  I would want to see a measurement of some type demonstrating an electrical difference before I became interested ... Science is advanced not by DBT but rather by the development of new measurement techniques. That’s my own bias.

"

 

2. I propositioned you with a hypothetical experiment that demonstrates to the satisfaction of every convention and precedent in modern science that a cryo-treatment effect for our purposes as audiophiles could be established without a measurement of the kind that you required to provoke your interest - inviting you cordially to see that confining yourself to bottom-up thinking could be "cutting off your nose to spite your face" - in other words - that cleaving to a religious position on the matter could prevent you understanding or knowing something you might otherwise know or understand. That is the main thing you haven't addressed. There was an ambiguous quote about "real scientist" apparently in response - so I sought third party corroboration of what I was saying about bottom-up vs. top-down from someone writing about "Clear English in Real Science".

 

3. Instead you invited me to consider Maxell's equations! That's a new conversation as far as I am concerned. But I would say that scientific/empirical research is all about exploring the unknown - that which is not yet proven. p values always feature. "Proving" something via direct measurement is not proving anything - it's just measuring something. You always want to demonstrate the relevance of measurement(s) - usually via a hypothesis / Method / Results inc. p values / Conclusions. This is true in all the mainstream sciences. Yes pure mathematics is different. But that's pure mathematics.

 

Honestly I'm only conversing constructively about the usefulness of measurements to audiophiles! In the context of Jud's OP!

 

[jabbr]

27 minutes ago, Iving said:

2. I propositioned you with a hypothetical experiment that demonstrates to the satisfaction of every convention and precedent in modern science that a cryo-treatment effect for our purposes as audiophiles could be established without a measurement of the kind that you required to provoke your interest - inviting you cordially to see that confining yourself to bottom-up thinking could be "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

oh, right, yes I just disagree. 

1) DBTs are an audiophile pipe dream. I haven’t seen a rigorous one. This is purely hypothetical proposition. 

2) DBTs hardly satisfy “every convention and precedent in modern science” — your science is not my science. Name a single major discovery in modern science discovered by DBT.  Name a single major discovery.

 

3) Are Maxwell’s Equations top down or bottom up? I am talking about the physics of electronics — that’s the most relevant to the question about cryo treatments for electrical cables. 
 

I think we are just in different orbitals? I don’t think we have the same quantum numbers so it’s possible that we could converse but statistically so far, not much luck.

[Iving]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

oh, right, yes I just disagree. 

1) DBTs are an audiophile pipe dream. I haven’t seen a rigorous one. This is purely proposition. 

2) DBTs hardly satisfy “every convention and precedent in modern science” — your science is not my science. Name a single major discovery in modern science discovered by DBT.  Name a single major discovery.

 

3) Are Maxwell’s Equations top down or bottom up? I am talking about the physics of electronics — that’s the most relevant to the question about cryo treatments for electrical cables. 
 

I think we are just in different orbitals? I don’t think we have the same quantum numbers so it’s possible that we could converse but statistically so far, not much luck.

 

I'm sorry but that's far too selective an abstraction of this conversation to respond seriously. You haven't understood what I've been saying.

 

Yes we are in different orbits.

 

That's OK.

[alfe]

53 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

 

 

Yes we are in different orbits.

 

 

For two free electrons it's normal 🙂

[Iving]

2 minutes ago, alfe said:

For two free electrons it's normal 🙂

 

Nice

[alfe]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

3) Are Maxwell’s Equations top down or bottom up? I am talking about the physics of electronics — that’s the most relevant to the question about cryo treatments for electrical cables. 
 

 

What is relevant for me is the limitation of Wiedemann-Franz law https://www.electrical4u.com/wiedemann-franz-law/

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

2) DBTs hardly satisfy “every convention and precedent in modern science” — your science is not my science. Name a single major discovery in modern science discovered by DBT.  Name a single major discovery.

 

Viagra

 

It was serendipity.  Initial DBT was for use as a blood pressure medicine.  Researchers tried to stop it early as it was ineffective for BP.  When they went to collect the pills the people in the active arm were......quite reluctant!

 

Very, very few true revolutions in (modern) medicine.  Protease inhibitors for AIDS? Viagra (I have certainly made MANY men happy with it, including dudes I thought never had a chance at an erection again).  Definitely the new hepatitis C meds.

 

Bill

[Iving]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

Viagra

 

It was serendipity.  Initial DBT was for use as a blood pressure medicine.  Researchers tried to stop it early as it was ineffective for BP.  When they went to collect the pills the people in the active arm were......quite reluctant!

 

Very, very few true revolutions in (modern) medicine.  Protease inhibitors for AIDS? Viagra (I have certainly made MANY men happy with it, including dudes I thought never had a chance at an erection again).  Definitely the new hepatitis C meds.

 

Bill

 

Can't comment. Never needed it.

[lucretius]

22 hours ago, jabbr said:

Kuhn always comes to mind. Have you read?

 

If you accept Kuhn, then you have given up on truth (Kuhn asserted that science does not evolve toward anything but only away from something).

[Bill Brown]

4 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Can't comment. Never needed it.

 

Ha!  And hope you never do

 

Hopefully not too crude for the forum (happy to delete), but I might have used phrases like "driving nails" and "cutting diamonds."  

 

[Iving]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

Ha!  And hope you never do

 

Hopefully not too crude for the forum (happy to delete), but I might have used phrases like "driving nails" and "cutting diamonds."  

 

 

Doesn't seem too crude to me. I'm sure you are scientifically earnest in every respect. 🙂

[jabbr]

37 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Very, very few true revolutions in (modern) medicine.  Protease inhibitors for AIDS? Viagra (I have certainly made MANY men happy with it, including dudes I thought never had a chance at an erection again).  Definitely the new hepatitis C meds.

CRISPR, vaccines, etc.

 

Viagra — excellent! I’m not opposed to DBT by any means just that there’s a lot more to science 

[Iving]

Given today's discussion on this thread, I post this article merely for delectation - I do not take a "side" about anything! and I am not looking myself to discuss it further. [I just did the Frank @fas42exclamation mark there - should I be worried.] I thought perhaps the context and language might look "hard" enough for some mindsets, and I note within, "Thus, the closest thing we currently have to an explanation of E = mc² is a TDE."

 

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieFlor.htm

 

[Jud]

We are getting quite philosophical here, which is OK, but as for me when it comes to audio I would much rather discuss dielectrics than dialectics. 🙂

[Jud]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

@Jud mentioned cryo treatments for cables etc ... suppose someone wants to analyze this scientifically 

 

I would want to see a measurement of some type demonstrating an electrical difference before I became interested...

 

 

I have seen a paper showing measured electrical conductivity differences, after cryo vs. before. I briefly mentioned it here - this was years ago, and I've long since forgotten the citation.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 

3) Are Maxwell’s Equations top down or bottom up? I am talking about the physics of electronics — that’s the most relevant to the question about cryo treatments for electrical cables. 
 

 

 

Huhh? It's a heat treatment - no-one gets excited about the idea of heating up metals to a certain temperature and cooling them; metallurgy uses this as an everyday process. Cryo is merely taking the constantly heated metal, at room temperature, and forcefully cooling ... it's a function of where one lives on the temperature scale, 😉.