James Randi vs. Anjou Pear - once and for all

Brizonbiovizier I did not realize you were such an accomplished scientist. Perhaps I need to reconsider my stance- have I been duped by mass hypnosis? I wonder.

Now why don't you address the following questions- surely a man of science, such as yourself, can shed needed light on the scientific method hiding in Mr. Randi's balanced challange.

12-17-07: Leica_man
If cables all sound alike the why-

1. Why do we need to prove we have "paranormal" abilities before we can take the test? Is being paranormal a scientific variable for this "scientific" test? If so how do we prove this- winning Lottery numbers- LOL.
2. Why do we need to prove the cables sound "better" and not just different- who determines "better" and since when is better "scientific?"
2a. Is better not a "subjective" determination- how ironic or "moronic" in this case.
3. Why can we not select our cables- why are we forced to use a cable "ringer?"
4. Why can we not take the test in our own system that we are familiar with?
5. Why are we forced to run the cables through a switching box that will negate the differences between the cables being tested?

I like it, Leica man.

Come on one of you - step up and claim the money from randi and silence all objection

I can hardly take you up on your offer Mr T as I am the other side of the world.

The blind test negates the difference not the switching box. There are many switches in every hifi after all and also in the recording chain....

i would challenge randi, provided i could design the experiment and select the components as well as the sources. otherwise, anyone can design an experiment to increase the probability of a desired result.

Brizonbiovizier, why don't you take the Randi challenge? What if you heard a difference? Of course, you could just randomly say different or not different and assure you fulfilled your prior conception. This is the fallacy of DBTs. The real question is whether most people can hear a difference in a test where people could not lie to fulfill the hypothesis. Were a random sample of 1500 to have enough who heard a difference to achieve statistical significance, we would reject the null hypothesis that people don't hear a difference. This would be good research not Randi's game.