What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Swarovski
Swarovski Focusers: facts at last.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="brocknroller" data-source="post: 3267602" data-attributes="member: 665"><p><strong>Calling time on ‘anecdotal’ evidence</strong></p><p></p><p>After reading Steve C.'s post where he referred to (hopefully jokingly) everybody who ever experienced focuser problems with Swaros as "OCD," and then calling for some objective test as the only answer to this debate, it was obvious that his post proved the hopelessness of such a test. </p><p></p><p>After all, who would set the standard for a machine or device to test what level of "stiction" or how much harder a focuser turns in one direction than the other or how much "squeak" is acceptable<em> for everybody</em>? </p><p></p><p>Binoculars are used by humans and only the humans who use the binoculars can be the judge of these things. It's not like doing a resolution test or photographing CA or SA, etc. (even then, these tests are often preformed at high powers, so what they find may not be noticeable by the human eye @ 8x or 10x). </p><p></p><p>"Anecdotal" is all we have when it comes to focusers, and that might not be a bad thing even though it's often dismissed because in this age of science, objectivity is seen as the "end all authority." Not necessarily when it comes to human behavior, as this researcher writes: </p><p></p><p><em>A ceasefire may have been declared in the paradigm wars but ideas about what counts as real evidence runs deep argues Dr Cathy Sharp, Director of Research for Real. We lose too many chances to learn about what matters when stories of lived experience, that can cut to the heart of the issues, are discounted. Research and evaluation reports, Sharp argues, provide information and argument but stories provide insight and the empathy needed for action.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><a href="http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/calling-time-on-anecdotal-evidence/" target="_blank">calling-time-on-anecdotal-evidence/</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="brocknroller, post: 3267602, member: 665"] [b]Calling time on ‘anecdotal’ evidence[/b] After reading Steve C.'s post where he referred to (hopefully jokingly) everybody who ever experienced focuser problems with Swaros as "OCD," and then calling for some objective test as the only answer to this debate, it was obvious that his post proved the hopelessness of such a test. After all, who would set the standard for a machine or device to test what level of "stiction" or how much harder a focuser turns in one direction than the other or how much "squeak" is acceptable[I] for everybody[/I]? Binoculars are used by humans and only the humans who use the binoculars can be the judge of these things. It's not like doing a resolution test or photographing CA or SA, etc. (even then, these tests are often preformed at high powers, so what they find may not be noticeable by the human eye @ 8x or 10x). "Anecdotal" is all we have when it comes to focusers, and that might not be a bad thing even though it's often dismissed because in this age of science, objectivity is seen as the "end all authority." Not necessarily when it comes to human behavior, as this researcher writes: [I]A ceasefire may have been declared in the paradigm wars but ideas about what counts as real evidence runs deep argues Dr Cathy Sharp, Director of Research for Real. We lose too many chances to learn about what matters when stories of lived experience, that can cut to the heart of the issues, are discounted. Research and evaluation reports, Sharp argues, provide information and argument but stories provide insight and the empathy needed for action. [/I] [URL="http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/calling-time-on-anecdotal-evidence/"]calling-time-on-anecdotal-evidence/[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Swarovski
Swarovski Focusers: facts at last.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top