scientific double blinded cable test

It’s unfortunate that this thread - which is about the science of double blind audio testing - has become one of the ugliest ever on Audiogon. It’s proof how some want to politicize this issue - and I say that even as I argue that while such testing has its place, it’s of limited value to most audiophiles.
geoffkait

Just to mention, the word repeatable can be misleading

I think "repeatable" in this context means that the test can be replicated by others. That requires that the test protocol be explained to at least allow the possibility of independent verification even if - as sometimes happens in science - another conducts the ostensibly same test, but arrives at a different result.

If the testing protocol is inherently unscientific (as proposed by gdhal here), it saves other experimenters the trouble of trying to replicate the test. If you’re trying to apply science, it’s futile to pursue an unscientific protocol.

That’s how science works.

No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever. You certainly don’t want to replicate phony test procedures. That’s why you want completely independent tests. As I said before one test all by itself has no meaning if the results are negative. Ideally you want a lot if independent tests that come up with the same results. If one is negative you throw that one out. Problem solved.

geoffkait

No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever.

Are you referring to Pons & Fleischmann? If so, you are the first to suggest that they rigged anything. Indeed, the opposite was the case, and they freely shared their test procedure.

As fate would have it, others couldn’t duplicate their results. But, as I said, that’s how science works. Thank goodness.

@cleeds  No, this is how science works:

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10]

Your friend and humble scribe