Well I agree it would be a challenging concept to assess but I don't agree with that view that can't be done. As I suggested before don't make perfect the enemy of the good.
First, it is most likely that no scientific (or non-scientific) analysis of anything will ever prefect or associated with certitude.
What we seek, using the scientific method of analysis, is the most probable answer and also we want some quantitative assessment of the probability that the answer that we have determined is indeed correct. That is true with every test.
We seek the likelihood of an answer. The probability is incredibly low but it is possible that gas might flow someday happen to flow from a low pressure vessel INTO a high pressure one -- it is theoretically possible as a consequence of random molecular motion. But again the odds are massively low for this to ever happen.
Models for the relationship of atmospheric characteristics (like CO2) to global temperatures contain REALLY hundreds of thousands of variables -- admittedly none of these models are currently predicting very well but very complex process can be tested -- this is certain.
Scientific testing of mandolin tone (or sound or volume or projection or you name it) is not automatically and permanently an un-testable black art even if there are tricky or problematic variables (including human ones). Everyday we see organizations taking a scientific opinion polls on feelings, opinions, beliefs, or anything else. It is not impossible. It is done every day.
Are there variables that need to be controlled? Of course. Do some of the variables involve difficult-to-control measures? Yes. But are they such that a valid test cannot be made and valid result at some known probability be rendered? Absolutely not IMO.
Will the answer on the detectability of enhanced versus not-enhanced mandolin characteristics be associated with a certitude of p < 0.001? Most likely no. But if we would accept some lesser level of certitude (we would want to be wrong less then 1 time in 20 - i.e., p<0.05) going in. Then sure. We can then test to see if we can meet that level. That's what statistics is for.
But just as the very eloquently designed Paris test showed on violins the answer to the question, "can musicians or critics distinguish the sound of a classic violin from an excellent modern violin if they can not use the sense of sight?" The answer was no.
Because of the Paris test we know that with some level of statistical confidence. Is the answer absolute -- or could we say that no one would ever be able to perform the test and correctly identify the classic violin every time? The answer is again no.
But we do know that probably most individuals will not be successful at it. I say yes that is what the test demostrated.
It would be no different with mandolins.
So of course these tests can be done! That is my opinion and I am sticking to it!!
Bookmarks