In Reply to: Because the whole problem is probabilistic... posted by real_jj on June 1, 2006 at 14:36:12:
Ok Real JJ, I'll start by admitting I'm confused. IF I understand what you're saying the real problems are overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, are all proababilistic in nature and not my biases, preferences and expectations. Yet that's exactly opposite of what so many other Objectivists do claim. By that I mean other Objectivists say IT IS my biases, preferences and expectations that are causing me to imagine or fool myself into believing I hear differences! Hence part of my confusion.Let's leave the difference in opinions between Objectivists out of the issue for now. In order to try and keep this discussion rational egoless and hopefully educational, I'll ask these four questions....
FIRST: 1) Please define what "Overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, mean to you. (I ask this so we aren't disagreeing over meanings or definitions of words.)
SECOND: 2) Please explain how they are all proababilistic in nature. (I need to know how they are "all proababilistic in nature" to understand how they are effecting test results.)
THIRD: 3) Please explain "IF" they are all proababilistic in nature how one knows if they are occuring and hence effecting the test or not. (I need this answer to determine if overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc are always influencing test results.)
If the answer to #3 is if overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc aren't always influencing test results, then I ask:
FOURTH: 4) How are they reliable if one doesn't know whether or not they are influencing what's heard?
If the answer to #3 is if overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc are always influencing test results, then I ask:
FOURTH: 4) Why do they only sometimes cause me to be fooled into imagining I hear differences one time and not the next?
Thanks, Thetubeguy1954
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Because the whole problem is probabilistic... - thetubeguy1954 06:28:37 06/02/06 (10)
- Etc... - real_jj 11:36:17 06/02/06 (4)
- Re: Etc... - thetubeguy1954 13:35:57 06/02/06 (3)
- Hmmm... - real_jj 13:58:46 06/02/06 (2)
- Re: Hmmm... - thetubeguy1954 06:05:12 06/05/06 (1)
- Well, all it takes is... - real_jj 11:41:33 06/05/06 (0)
- That's a list of questions. I'll have to address them 1 at a time. - real_jj 10:00:44 06/02/06 (1)
- Re: That's a list of questions. I'll have to address them 1 at a time. - thetubeguy1954 10:10:49 06/02/06 (0)
- The "probabilistic" argument can be circumvented. - clarkjohnsen 07:48:24 06/02/06 (2)
- That's exactly what blind tests do, Clark, and you know it. - real_jj 10:01:30 06/02/06 (1)
- "jj always knows better"! Now, about the tubeguy's question... nt - clarkjohnsen 11:31:54 06/02/06 (0)