This is where Occam's razor is applied.
Absolutely not, this is where the chosen axiom intervenes: combine it with the fact that good designer and good QC => no speaker with such a blatant mistake would be left as "finished", you apply a modus tollens on this, you get not good designer and good QC <=> bad designer or bad QC. After that, it's just applying the knowledge that the same people are doing all of the Salk speakers to the situation.
Well, point them out. The only "gap" isn't big enough for me to consider it right now: the only possible excuse would be damage after the sample left the factory.
Thanks.
I think your application of the Burden Of Proof is proving a bit awkward.
The burden of proof simply stated puts the onus on the one making the claim to justify the claim.
The question then is who is making a claim about what, and how is it being justified? You mentioned burden of proof, and then made a claim.
You claimed that, in the example of the Salk WOW1, we ought to conclude from one "bad" set of measurements that "it's just basic logic to consider the whole brand as bad until more data is made by the same measurer."
Well, that's a fine start. You made a claim then gave your justification. And then you invoked Occam's Razor, which tells us to select the the simplest explanation that accounts for the phenomenon to be explained, without multiplying entities unnecessarily. Using this rule, I understand you to be saying that we ought to accept your (provisional) conclusion that "the whole brand is bad" because the simplest conclusion to draw from one poorly measuring speaker is best explained as being the result of a poor speaker designer. (It could also be just a basic inductive inference too IF the WOW1 were your only measured reference).
The problem is that all sorts of priors can't be ignored in an explanation. There's all sorts of data attached to Salk speakers that have to be accounted for in this "simplest explanation." For instance: Dennis Murphy is known as an excellent designer, particularly with crossovers, and we have seen even on this site, measuring his BMR monitors, that they display very competent speaker design.
And yet your explanation makes a claim about the ENTIRE BRAND.
Remember in Occam's razor you have to have an explanation that accounts for all the relevant data, and part of that Data is that someone who has produced very competent designs works on many of the speakers in that brand. So how does the explanation of a poor speaker designer account for THAT?
It doesn't. At this point.