Ok, so here I am a physicist (no I am not a student anymore) and I don't "FEEL" anything regarding DXO.
Are you trying to kid us all here? Get a grip on reality.
Social scientists 'feel' things. Real scientists quantify things....
Do you really want to say that you do not "FEEL" what is behind the numbers in a real life or do not want to "FEEL" them?
Simple example - you are leaving your apartment, checking the weather gadget and it tells that in one hour temperature will drop down from 70F to 41F and wind speed will rise from 1m/c to 30m/c. And you will be telling that you do not "feel" what all that means and what you need to do regarding that and what to put on? I can't believe that ))))))) And there thousands examples like this)))
I think this example above clearly clarifies what I meant in my posts using word “FEEL” the numbers.
And I really appreciate your sense of humor but as usual to make a joke one need to turn things upside down to make things look funny.
And here order of things does matter and significant.
First of course are things quantified by numbers (nobody argues about that) and then how one realize or understand what is behind that numbers ("forest behind the trees") - one can name it "FEEL", "VISUALIZE", "IMAGINE" - call it whatever you want.
I have no doubts that you know this better than me ))))
Regarding DXO SCORE discussion my point was that it is absolutely pointless to argue about SCORE results, one need to see at measurements curves and understand or "feel" how this correlates to real life.
Arguing about one dimensional SCORE value is the same as to argue about mapping multi-dimensional space into one dimensional. No need to be a scientist to know that mapping multidimensional space into single dimensional space has infinite number of solutions and each one could be correct depending on initial mapping conditions. In addition this mapping is not reversible - you cannot revert or map it back to the original space - here is again infinite number of solutions for that.
Any discussion should be constructive and not destructive – so something useful could result as outcome of that and could be used for benefit of all involved.
Again back to DXO - and if they are listening – they could easily reconcile most (but not all of course) people on all the forums by introducing several different sensor scores based on the target usage and carefully defined metrics to get right score for each of the usage domains e.g.:
1. Landscape/studio photography
2. General use photography (no extreme conditions)
3. Sport/events/shows photography for ISO above 1600 or may be even above ISO 3200
4. Best universal shooting – suitable to work in any extreme conditions
5. Keep their own DXO metrics.
Then from drop down menu list anyone can select criteria which he want to use to and see what are sensors ranking and what is the best sensor for this specific domain.
There is no big deal to do that.
This could be just better way to present measurements results to specific groups of photographers.