scientific double blinded cable test

Almost everyone who is, you know, an advanced audiophile, for lack of a better term, agrees that cables sound different and that cables, like fuses, are directional. Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test? Shouldn’t it be the skeptics who should submit to testing? Testing someone else devises. Then they should be required to apologize publicly.

gdhal
I’m not suggesting that one listens and then comes back to listen 24 hours later. We’re talking a matter of minutes. Those who claim to hear a difference should be able to demonstrate to disbelievers, or they shouldn’t make such claims. Additionally, within the framework of the EXAMPLE PROCEDURE I provided herein in a previous post, I remain open minded to an alternative. Like speaker wire, I’m flexible.

>>>It’s actually a strawman argument to presume that blind tests will demonstrate anything to disbelievers. The plain fact if the matter is nothing can deter the Uber Skeptic from his belief. Not counterargymen, not measurements, not tests. Not ever blind tests, which are for some reason considered sacred by Uber Skeptics. But as we’ve seen all tests, including blind test, can be attached on a number of levels. For one thing nobody agrees on what the protocol of a blind test should be. Therefore, ANY blind test is subject to scrutiny and attack. I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.

Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them. That’s your first mistake from which all your other mistakes naturally flow. 😁

Let me conclude with this excerpt from the intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery.

“Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.

As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.”

your friend and humble scribe, GK

gdhal....  As to switching quickly, realistically/practically that doesn't play a role ...We're talking a matter of minutes. Those who claim to hear a difference should be able to demonstrate to disbelievers, or they shouldn't make such claims

There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus. If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.

In the interim, everyone here is free to offer their observations  free of any testing requirement, notwithstanding your insistence that "they shouldn't make such claims."

I remain open minded to an alternative. Like speaker wire, I'm flexible.

Then why don't you subject yourself to double blind tests?

I agree with cleeds that research has shown that audio memory is short, perhaps no more than a few seconds. That is also one of the most pertinent criticisms of uncontrolled listening tests.
I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.