Originally posted by biz-engineer If you were PhD in biology,
.. you would show your poorly hidden agenda only when confronted with a really objective and scientifc test: You would then simply
dismiss all the serious test's results, because it simply did not support your own prejudices.
First: Define the test result. Second: Design clown approach to get to desired results and avoid direct comparisons to more preferred/liked/promoted peer products. Third: call it a "test". Fourth: attack anyone who raises an eyebrow.
Originally posted by non relevant PhD: A fantastic example of how carefully vetted models need to be re-evaluated to make sure they're relevant.
Any photographer actually shooting in the real-world will immediately appreciate how far more accurate Nikon object tracking is vs. Canon.
So,
no test is "relevant" if it doesn't prove the writer's personal prejudice/claim of Nikon's superiority. Not Pentax, not Canon.
Remember that is the same PhD owner, who went to any length to call any well reasoned incoming criticism "
confirmation bias" and while claiming to have repeated the same poor test over and over again deliberately would not want to quickly run the same test with peer group cameras, even though this would have been logical and easy to do. But now it is clear why this was avoided: It would have shown unwanted results, which are by definition "not relevant".
I thought this approach was only taught in North Korea and some backward kingdoms these days.
Credibility? Professionalism? Robustness? Scientific approaches? Ah, get away with that.
Evolve it until it fits.
Did somebody ever wonder if there is a correlation between the actual qualification of people with PhDs and them working as paid lowly marketing/writers/bloggers versus working in an actual scientific job in their home topic?
I bet it is only the
very best medical doctors who drive taxi cabs / write blogs and all the failed low quality ones end up paid very well in hospitals/university/large pharma companies etc. Or, wait? Hm. Maybe something got mixed up here.