Non-explicatory 'explanations'

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

'Expectation bias' is not an explanation of anything. It does not and
cannot 'explain' specific aural phenomena, any more than 'phlogiston'
explains combustion. No-one discussing 'expectation bias' in scientific
literature uses it that way. 'Expectation bias' affects the
interpretations of observations, not the observations themselves.

http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm

http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprint/137/5/446

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> 'Expectation bias' is not an explanation of anything. It does not and
> cannot 'explain' specific aural phenomena, any more than 'phlogiston'
> explains combustion. No-one discussing 'expectation bias' in scientific
> literature uses it that way. 'Expectation bias' affects the
> interpretations of observations, not the observations themselves.

> http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm

irrlevant

> http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprint/137/5/446

Please explain how a person saying that he heard a difference
because he switched amps, *isn't* an example of expectation bias
affecting *interpretation of observation*.

It's a plain fact that people can 'perceive' things that aren't real
-- in popular culture this is recognized , and it's also recognized in courtrooms and in
science.

When the subjects are *human* then not only are the experimental *observers* subject to
controls, but the subjects are too.. That's how *double* blinding got its name.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2005 00:21:06 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >'Expectation bias' is not an explanation of anything.
>
> Sure it is. It certainly explains why you *think* that cables sound
> different, when it's easy to demonstrate that they really don't.

It does not EXPLAIN anything, but simply gives a cause without
explanation. There is a difference. If I tell you that hitting a tennis
ball from low to high will make it dip, that does not EXPLAIN why it
does so. The 'Bernoulli effect' explains it. 'Topspin' does not make
the ball dip: the difference in air pressure created by the topspin
does. I am not saying that 'expectation bias' does not exist, but
citing it does not explain any aural phenomena. You need to give me a
'Bernoulli effect' type of explanation.

> > It does not and
> >cannot 'explain' specific aural phenomena, any more than 'phlogiston'
> >explains combustion. No-one discussing 'expectation bias' in scientific
> >literature uses it that way. 'Expectation bias' affects the
> >interpretations of observations, not the observations themselves.
>
> Not in the case of 'cable sound', where it definitely does affect the
> observations.

HOW? Proof?

> In fact, expectation bias is [precisely why medical
> trials use double-blind protocols. It's also why placebos work. Why do
> you persist in arguing against these incontrovertible facts?

Double-blind studies are used to guard against several kinds of 'bias'.

> >http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm
>
> Interesting history, with no relevance to expectation bias
>
> >http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprint/137/5/446
>
> This demonstrates the common suppression of unwanted negative results,
> it's not the same kind of expectation bias.

That's what 'expectation bias' actually is.


>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Here is a site that gives an account of scientific explanation."

Yes, and a good one too, however it doesn't address methodologies of
avoiding false perceptions and induced effects by those involved in
research; which is the core idea at hand. It does address however the
simple observation that knowing or not knowing which bit of gear is active
completely changes the outcome of listening alone tests. By the deductive
model discussed there it is knowledge and not the gear which makes the
differences in outcomes.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"In which section does this appear? I don't see it."

My fault for the confusion, the last sentence was meant to apply to the
previous as an example of a deductive approach.

"Second, the explanans must contain at least one "law of nature" and this
must be an essential premise in the derivation in the sense that the
derivation of the explanandum would not be valid if this premise were
removed."

snip

"Citing 'expectation bias' does not 'explain' why listeners experience
certain aural phenomena, because it does not include the Nomological
component, either.

I have already said what explanation is used or the label attached is not
relevant, it is sufficient to show that the presense of knowledge only as
to which bit of gear is active causes the reported diferences to change.
The above sounds alot like hempel and without reading it in context it is
about what is the minimal basis for developing scientific models of
explanation. My point is that we need not even evoke science because no
model need be evoked, simpley an observational bit of logic. If by law of
nature we mean tightly held concensus we find one in researchers who take
all possible care to exclude knowledge in research involving humans
because of the demonstrated ease with which their perceptions can be
manipulated and distort results.