Measurement accuracy, precision and Pseudo Science

Looks like I spent way too much time these days related to my experience in a recent incident. Let's move on and come back to the focus of my blog, i.e. use critical thinking to debunk pseudo science claim

How many people can tell the difference between accuracy and precision? I bet if you are into gun, you would probably know it for sure. 

Look at the below graph:

It should tell you what are the difference between accuracy and precision. 

I bet that the understanding of the difference between accuracy and precision is so basic for any scientist/engineer. I was proven to be wrong again (thanks to various "audio science" forums and they are really eye-opening for me to see something I didn't see before). A lot of "scientist/engineer" can't tell the difference.

"Precision part": two DACs are measured to have very high SINAD. People in the "audio science" forums would call these two DACs to be "audibly transparent" (a very mis-leading term, I will explain in my future blog)

"Accuracy part": the two DACs sound the same

Art of Pseudo Science

Here comes the pseudo science part:

In the "Precision Part", you could have a very high precision instruments to measure the SINAD (or other attributes of the DACs). You could come to a conclusion that the two DACs are both have a very good SINAD numbers.

I am not going to argue with your measurements. I trust that you are professional in the measurements and I trust that these two DACs are indeed having very good SINAD numbers (say, both are higher than 120)

However, does it mean that you are measuring the "sound the same" part? No, it is not. It does not have the "Accuracy Part" I mentioned above.

It is the art of pseudo science.

i.e. using some facts to infer a conclusion (that is not supported by the facts presented / used)

Going back to gunning, you could have very good precision in shooting to you enemy but you would be killed in the end because you always hit the same off-target place with good precision. Your enemy could kill you with just one accruate and precise shot. 

Use your critical thinking to debunk pseudo science

From my point of view, it is pretty easy to tell if someone is telling pseudo science. 

1. Is the fact only indirectly/vaguely supporting the claim? 

2. Is there any counter-example of the claim?

3. Is the claim use some tech jargon or a well-known but vague term (e.g. audibly transparent) without detailed definition / explanation of the terms they use?

4. Did someone stop/ignore you when you ask a few more questions about the questionable claim?

5. Somone stop you from telling the truth that is incompatible with their claim.

6. Is there any contradiction in the claim

7. Is there any double standard in the claim

If any of these are yes, it is a red-flag and it indicates there is a high chance the claim is just pseudo science claim