A challenge to the "measurement" camp


I’ve watched some of his video and I actually agree on some of what he said,
but he seems too confident on his insistence on measurement. For those
who expound on the merits of blind test and measurement, why not turn
the table upside down?

Why not do a blind test of measurement? That is I will supply all the measurement
you want, can you tell me which is a better product?

For example, if I have a set of cable, and a set of measurement for each
individual cable, can you tell me which is the best cable based on measurement
alone? I will supply all the measurement you want.
After all, that is what you’re after right? Objective result and not subjective
listening test.

Fast forward to 8:15 mark where he keeps ranting about listening test
without measurement.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=katmUM-Xelw

By the way, is he getting paid by Belden?  Because he keeps talking about it
and how well it measures.  I've had some BlueJean cables and they can easily
bettered by some decent cables.  
andy2

Showing 3 responses by taras22

...speaking of putting math, the primary tool thingee that allows measurements to be analyzed, into perspective....

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-incompleteness-theorems-work-20200714/

....which kinda implies that in the big picture things run out of precision pretty darn quick...to the point where most seemingly absolute proofs are reduced to wild-assed guesses in fairly short order ( assuming of course you are using analysis of any sort that relies on math...)...the problem that occurs when observations are reduced to theory which depends on the use of a logic type different from the observation...historically the difference between magic and scientific cosmologies ( and no, magic here doesn’t refer to hats and rabbits...one refers more to the name, and the other to the thing named...different logic types eh... )

...its just "periodical knowledge" but it should/might give pause..

A proponent of scientific perspectivism would say that because scientists put together models and theories of a phenomenon for specific purposes, and because none of those models or theories can capture all of the details of the phenomenon at once, each one is necessarily partial. A pluralist philosopher of science would say we should use all these perspectives to put together theories about the biological world that are patchwork in a way, but all the better for it.

This sounds a lot like the case of the microbiome—but these views are much more far-reaching. Scientists make models and representations of the world when they make their theories, and arguably, the inability to capture everything at once applies in many if not all scientific fields. “We believe that it is time to move beyond metaphors, and we propose a scientifically pluralist approach that focuses on characterizing fundamental biological properties of microbiomes such as heritability, transmission mode, rates of dispersal rates, and strength of local selection,” Morar and Bohannan write. “Such an approach will allow us to break out of the confines of narrow conceptual frameworks, and to guide the exploration of our complexity as chimeric beings.”

The fact that there still isn’t one “best” metaphor for grasping the microbiome might tell us something much deeper about the world—that perhaps the most promising approach to understanding it is to play with a variety of perspectives, prizing none over the others.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-is-the-human-microbiome-exactly?utm_source=pocket-newtab