Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the
'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)
Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in
plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context
passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't
know what you were asking, or why.


Fair enough - sorry if my opening was a little offhand.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I
know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny
to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and
use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?


Arny has reached certain conclusions from a test. That test relied on a
certain method. And that method - whether he or anyone else like it or
not - arose from a particular methodology. In very plain terms I was
asking for the reasoning behind the method.

If you are asking for his personal view, then it would be for him to
explain.

He doesn't want to, and that's fine by me.

However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
results he and others refer to.

I can only assume that he doesn't have a view.

If you are asking for a more general
explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can
help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question.


No, nothing general - just why he would choose a method for a test. I
wasn't asking for general answers - it's by belief that there is no
'correct' methodology.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.

Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts'
you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please
explain?


The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that
CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all
practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that
assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that
assertion with certain facts:

1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources.

I felt these were assumptions, and Arny then led me to a test carried
out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this
context:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables, respondents. A
bunch of people - probably highly skilled in their field - concluding
that they couldn't reliably hear any difference given two modes of
playback. I would add an important part of context - the thread is about
*audible* difference.

Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to
something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that
methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me.

And that, as they say, is that.