3 ms·
You don't need to get technical about it, but I think most people would expect any test described as scientific to be objective.
by greendestiny 15y ago
You don't need to get technical about it, but I think most people would expect any test described as scientific to be objective.
- tantalor 15y agoDo you mean free of bias or reproducible? I think the author was clearly free from bias, and his results are easily reproduced by applying the same algorithms. The subjectivity which you complain about may be the conclusions drawn from the results of the tests, which I think are distinct. Specifically, you cite his "intuition" as the origin of the conclusion. I think the author's intuition is reliable because, like "real" scientists, he's an expert and speaks publicly about his work.[1] Or at least he appears to be. Are you prepared to challenge him as an expert? [1] http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/bh-usa-07-krawetz-wp.pdf http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/bh-usa-07-krawetz-wp.pdf
- greendestiny 15y agoI could, but shouldn't we demand he show some proof for his claims? It seems to me that if you pull a bit of maths and technical magic out the normal skepticism the tech community melts away into a compliant bundle of gullibility.