Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , cubastreet
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

Maybe a real difference can only be heard by a listener some of the
time, less than the level of significance used during data analysis. It
doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist, just that it's not
statistically significant. Remember that scientific evidence is NEVER
proof.


Agreed. However unless we actually have reliable and relevant evidence for
a hypothesis we have no reason to regard it as being a serious candidate
for being a reliable description of the real situation. Hence the real
concern is not with what *maybe* the case, but with what the evidence
supports, and what further tests can be proposed that can actually be
carried out to provide ways to distingiish between new hypotheses which
previous test could not discriminate between.

Occam's Razor remains very useful after all these years. It does not
'prove' anything 'wrong', but avoids us having invent or invoke mysterious
complexities which may simply not be needed to understand how things
actually behave. Thus we can use it to clarify our understanding until such
time as new evidence shows that an added complication may be required. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

I've seen the Razor argument thrown in from time to time on this ng and
I'm afraid I see it a lazy side-step. The complexity is obvious - hence
the traffic all this generates. And I believe this complexity stems
from, in part, squabbles over measurement and tests. But also, and of
more interest and significance, an understanding of how consciousness
arises in this context. Nobody understands that. Cutting things back
with Occam's Razor might give comfort - but it doesn't explain why so
many people find significant differences between 'identical' bits of kit.

Rob