FAQ on HA Wiki
Reply #14 – 2007-05-02 19:54:15
This would change the wording, but not the meaning. The problem is that double-blind-testing cannot (completely) exclude subjective/personal bias. Especially not when it comes to interpreting the results (and uninterpreted data is worthless.... its just random numbers without any relations unless you interprete them). Off course one could make the argument, that this is less of concern when it comes to the *measurement* itself(ignoring the test-setup and result-interpretation). While this may be technically more near the truth, it would be very misleading. When you write an FAQ about DBTs on the wiki, then the audience which you are addressing most probably has no clue about the theoretical background-details how science and experimentation works - and quite possibly neither they are interested in learning them just to understand why DBTs are necessary, nor you are interested in writing a kickstart-manual on science theory. When people read that article, then they do not make such differentiations. They only want to know "if it works, why it works". They see all three components - the setup, measurement and interpretation - as one thing. So, if you write "removes all personal bias", then their interpretation will be "it will magically eradicate all possible error-sources and subjective influences, so that the result is ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE. And since they associate objectivity with truth, the final meaning is "this test tells you the absolute truth". This would even be the case, if you insert the word "measurement" somewhere - they will not understand its relevance (because they lack information) and therefore just filter it out. On the other hand - giving them a quick halfassed rundown on the background theory may actually irritate them more, than educate them (sometimes, no information is better than incomplete information - which is why i proposed to only focus on the observer/subject-expectancy effect - which is the main issue why DBTs are done anyways). - Lyx