Jump to content

Fritz - Curtin Old vs New test - why I don't trust it


Carl Stross
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 427
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm guessing that you don't have much experience with foreign language syntaxes and speech patterns, from your interpretation of Claudia's post.

 

No, I don't think you have explained clearly at all what the problem is. From what I have seen so far, you might as well be a disruptive thirteen-year-old posting on Mommy's computer. I've asked for your credentials (Claudia's are readily available), but nothing so far.

 

As to Claudia and I being friends, I've only spent several minutes conversing with her in person. If that qualifies, I'm OK with that.

 

 

 

I don't find it conveniently intuitive either, but I'm not a statistical analyst, and I'm always willing to learn.

 

1. You're guessing too much

 

2. My credentials are not your business - but you knew that : we are not discussing credentials here. 

 

3. If you don't find it "conveniently intuitive", you shouldn't get involved in this discussion.

 

Respectfully, I mean. Anything else ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I understand perfectly your model. 

 

2. What data, given your model, would show player1 to be capable of discriminating New vs Old  ?   

Hold on.

 

1. You're the one who is so insistent that she should have done additional tests.

2. You were quite vocal about what she should have done.

3. I asked you first.

4. Claudia Fritz and David are under no obligation to do your homework for you.

 

Have you thought about additional testing and what it would show?  I've only asked twice so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You're guessing too much

 

2. My credentials are not your business - but you knew that : we are not discussing credentials here. 

 

3. If you don't find it "conveniently intuitive", you shouldn't get involved in this discussion.

 

Respectfully, I mean. Anything else ?

1. I eagerly await your evidence.

 

2. Oh, I didn't know that, and was kinda thinking that credentials had already been a significant part of this discussion. ;)

 

3. How come? Is intuitive convenience proof or disproof of validity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claudia, I admire what you have accomplished, but you should not post here.  It is just too unfriendly (and is probably upsetting as well).  Let your paper do the talking.  There is an old saying:  "Truth is the Daughter of Time."  

 

There are a couple of Trolls that write at a very high level on this who are attacking you, but their writing is propaganda.  A lot of readers do not chose to see it for what it is.  So, I would give it up.  The moderator needs to step in and make an adjustment on these trolls.

 

regards

 

Mike D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I eagerly await your evidence.

 

2. Oh, I didn't know that, and was kinda thinking that credentials had already been a significant part of this discussion. ;)

 

3. How come? Is intuitive convenience proof or disproof of validity?

 

1. Thank you

2. No, they were not - observe please that NOBODY here mentions his/her credentials. 

3. No it is not. But lack thereof slows one down to a crawl sometimes. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claudia and team, I also admire your study, and I feel that the myth of the superiority of ancient instruments can be a source of dissatisfaction to both professional and student violinists, who cannot afford what have become collectors / investment objects.  It is beneficial to the community as a whole to pursue the truth in these matters in an evidence based as opposed to opinionated manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Thank you

2. No, they were not - observe please that NOBODY here mentions his/her credentials. 

3. No it is not. But lack thereof slows one down to a crawl sometimes. :)

2. Someone mentioning their own credentials is quite different from credentials being part of the discussion.

Still, you are clearly mistaken. Many posts contain "signature lines", which often include bio and credential information, if you failed to notice. This is yet one more thing which doesn't instill a high level of confidence in your assessments or observational acumen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Someone mentioning their own credentials is quite different from credentials being part of the discussion.

Still, you are clearly mistaken. Many posts contain "signature lines", which often include bio and credential information, if you failed to notice. This is just one more thing which doesn't instill a high level of confidence in your assessments.

 

You are not making sense. Also I asked her for her CV and got nothing. I would also like to know in what exactly is she qualified. But that is absolutely irrelevant for the discussion. Was just simple curiosity. She has no CV on her web page.

 

By credentials do you mean stuff like "Burgess Instruments" ?

 

But I agree, this discussion has past it's prime LONG LONG LONG AGO.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way David - what is your impression of the Study ? Do you think the interpretation of the results is correct ?

It correlates well with many other less formal experiments I know of or have been involved with, but that's just one factor, and wouldn't be enough alone to get me to make a "decision". In the statistical interpretation realm, I have nothing impressive education-wise to claim.

 

But why try to make any kind of decision at all on old-versus-new (the part in italics has been edited for better clarity), while information is continuing to come in? To me, doing so mostly looks like an impediment to further learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But why take any kind of stand at all, while information is continuing to come in? To me, it just looks like an impediment to further learning.

 

It's not about taking a stand - I have no interest in this. It's about pointing errors of judgement and/or interpretation. 

Further studies may be very valuable - nobody disputes that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also applaud the experimenters for their proper design of the experiment and the careful execution of it.  It is distressing to see so many posts by people who don't understand the nature of statistical reasoning or experimental design.

 

I was stimulated to consider a topic that was not part of the experiment, namely the topic of condition and robustness of instruments.  I had heard anecdotal evidence that some old instruments are not robust under change of environment and some players have a different (newer?) instrument for long distance travel or change of climate.  Then I happened to come across a video interview of Perlman ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBK7wOqhogE ) in which he is holding a violin and says it is his summer violin and he plays his Strad (Soil, presumably) in the winter.  He doesn't say what his "summer violin" is, maybe it's the Sauret del Gesu(!).  In any case he apparently doesn't want to play the Soil Strad in the summer.  Of course, there could be any number of reasons having nothing to do with how well that instrument handles summer weather conditions.  Still, robustness in changing climates is usually a feature of newer instruments and lack of it is a deficiency in some old instruments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I very much doubt they [PNAS} would publish my views. I'm simple folk. And even if they would, that'd take a (long) while.

This is a challenge I issued to at least two people.  I had hoped that people would take a moment to evaluate their own qualifications and consider their own limitations.

 

Sorry to mention your qualifications, Carl, but you are the one who keeps mentioning your course in logic.

 

I think Carl correctly demurred here, suspecting that an audience of science professionals would not take his arguments seriously.  Keep in mind that the reviewers for PNAS are members of the National Academy of Science, and they know how to spot an incorrect argument.  I'll let you see for yourselves what it takes to be elected to the NAS.  But if one doesn't have the conficence to argue a case in PNAS, why are the same ideas supposed to make more sense on this forum?

 

Several of you have strong opinions but little doubt.  If you ponder your own qualifications, are you really so sure?  If you expressed an opinion about the statistics, think for a moment whether you paid attention in your math classes.  Could you pass an elementary exam in probability and statistics?  Have you ever designed an experiment and had to defend the results?  In your professional life do you have to read or write in a very precise way?  Would you be comfortable publishing in a professional journal?  In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science?

 

Does any of this make you a little less certain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a challenge I issued to at least two people.  I had hoped that people would take a moment to evaluate their own qualifications and consider their own limitations.

 

Sorry to mention your qualifications, Carl, but you are the one who keeps mentioning your course in logic.

 

I think Carl correctly demurred here, suspecting that an audience of science professionals would not take his arguments seriously.  Keep in mind that the reviewers for PNAS are members of the National Academy of Science, and they know how to spot an incorrect argument.  I'll let you see for yourselves what it takes to be elected to the NAS.  But if one doesn't have the conficence to argue a case in PNAS, why are the same ideas supposed to make more sense on this forum?

 

Several of you have strong opinions but little doubt.  If you ponder your own qualifications, are you really so sure?  If you expressed an opinion about the statistics, think for a moment whether you paid attention in your math classes.  Could you pass an elementary exam in probability and statistics?  Have you ever designed an experiment and had to defend the results?  In your professional life do you have to read or write in a very precise way?  Would you be comfortable publishing in a professional journal?  In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science?

 

Does any of this make you a little less certain?

 

I'm 54 and I am not sure I'd pass. Are you saying we should not discussing/critique the Study unless we answer yes to your questions ?

Do you understand that the problem here is that the MODEL is inadequate which Claudia Fritz DOES NOT DENY ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If identification of old versus new was the main or sole subject of our Paris experiment, we would have structured the experiment differently. 

 

When Joseph Curtin and I first discussed experiments we could do if we could ever get our hands on some Old Italian violins, we concluded that addressing the issue of whether players could identify old versus new would not be the most effective use of our extremely limited time with the old instruments. There was more important data we wanted to gather. So for the Indianapolis experiment, we did not pose the old versus new identification question until the very end of each session.

 

For the Paris experiment, we decided to gather more information on the old versus new identification but other goals were still higher priority. We wanted to see if preferences would change from a small room to a concert hall and the results were reported in our paper. Another important criticism we wanted to address from the Indianapolis experiment was about projection in the concert hall. Finally, we wanted to get good preference data and acoustical measurements on all of the violins so we can search for correlations between measurements, players' preferences, and projection. These will be the subjects of future papers, and I think more important in the long run than the issue of old versus new identification.

 

A much more productive use of everyone's time (short of organizing an actual experiment) on this subject might be to start a new thread to discuss how an experiment involving old versus new identification should be structured. What do we want to learn? What can we learn? There are some interesting and subtle issues. But for now, Claudia, Joseph and I are too busy working on other projects to organize an experiment on this subject...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for Claudia or anyone:  Claudia repeats many times that she and her team were only interested in determining if these TEN first-rate soloists could distinguish new versus old violins at better than chance odds.

 

I wonder why so much effort went into finding out about ONLY about ten players? So much expense? So much time and effort?

 

Do you really want us to believe that you only wanted to determine something about these ten players and not the larger and more significant question of whether there is any significant difference in new versus old violins?

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude that the general public --even most of the people on this forum--would make the assumption that if these ten "first-rate" soloists can not readily choose the old at better than chance levels, that you are in effect saying probably few other people can, and certainly the general purchasing public can not distinguish?

 

I understand about a select sample, I understand that you are trying to be precise and cautious in your conclusions, but REALLY what's all the fuss if it's just about TEN players.  Who cares about TEN soloists? What most care about is VALUE: real or perceived?

 

I stand by my original statement that your experiment is about the much larger subject of new versus old, and the testing of psychological pre-conditioning.

 

You even say yourself here on MN that the results will change the foundations goals ---then of course it would change the public's opinions.

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect for your work, and I am way wrong on many things about violins, but I just don't see the point in testing TEN people and saying all this is just about them.

 

Peter White

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...