There is nothing intrinsically wrong with blind testing, or even double-blind testing. Reliable DBT schemas are a cornerstone of scientific method. The key word there though is 'Reliable'...
Audio is the only branch of science, technology or engineering that I know of that uses a one-size-fits-all approach to DBT. Audio seems to have adopted the ABX test as the only game in town to such an extent that people in audio use ABX and DBT as interchangeable terms. This sets up a series of logic-chopped fallacious statements, to make it seem as if criticising the use of ABX ultimately criticises scientific method.
ABX is not DBT. ABX is a sub-set of DBT, used primarily in the audio world. It derives from the triangle test used in food science since the 1940s. Food science professionals have developed other forms of DBT for their branch of sensory science, because following Nunnally (1960) it was shown that small samples generally fail to reject the null hypothesis and after Ennis (1993), it became clear that the sample sizes used in food science were simply too small to have statistical power. Today in other branches of sensory science, the results of a triangle test (or similar) are considered underpowered if they have a sample size of less than 220 (ideally 318). In audio, we consider an ABX test with 20 subjects to be a major project, and yet according to the research, this sample size is going to have an uncorrectable weighting toward Type II error by its very nature.
Unfortunately, the Semmelweis reflex runs pretty deep in audio, and to dare to criticise ABX makes me a knuckle-dragging science hater among those who don't want the boat rocked. But the fact remains that if we use a test that has been shown repeatedly to be underpowered even with a sample size far larger than the ones we can muster, it should not be considered robust or reliable. This doesn't even work on the "even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day" rule; it's more like insisting the stopped clock is always telling the right time, and the rest of the world is wrong.
Now... what the hell does all this have to do with the OP?
References:
Ennis, D. M. (1993). The Power of Sensory Discrimination Methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, vol 8, pp. 353-370.
Nunnally, J.C. (1960). The Place of Statistics in Psychology. Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 641-650.