[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:32:08 +0000 bas <baslake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > However, if you were to claim that the image was sharper, that it > > displayed colours better, and so on, then though it seems likely to > > me that this is true, I'd still say you'd need to test it. > > > > (If you can test something without relying on human senses and > > judgement, then I suspect you don't need to worry about double-blind > > trials. As soon as you bring humans into the equation, though, you > > need to be careful.) Humans == bias There is no way to avoid it. > surely if a human has no interest if some thing is cheaper, better > quality, sharper or any other improvement its not a biased > assessment. It is a biased assessment - a negative bias. All human judgements are biased - you can only be objective if the measurement can be objective *and* the measurement itself is taken directly without subsequent interpretation or assessment. Unless an effect can be measured *AND* the difference between two measurements compared without the need for subjective assessments (like 'too loud') there is no way to avoid bias except a double-blind randomised trial. > trouble is with what you are saying is that all things > replaced arent possibly any better than the "old" one. cant really > understand your logic. If 'better' requires a human assessment, it suffers from bias. If "better" can be reduced to merely the absolute measurement against a universally accepted scale, then the comparison can be objective. Therefore, 1 decibel can be objectively compared with 4 decibels. "Too loud" is entirely subjective and cannot be assessed without bias. So you could compare the results objectively by measuring signal:noise ratios or some other absolute measurement but whether that measurement means that the equipment is "better" is not necessarily objective unless everyone agrees on what type of measurement result IS better. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgp2SFOEoEfOU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html