suivix nailed it. Photography is not one dimensional. A great photograph with a camera phone must be handheld. Suivix's point about taking a great number of photos then comparing the results with a huge sample then making a quantitative assessment would be the only correct way to test it.
This post wasn't about the quality of the sensor it was about the quality of the photograph.
Increasing the number of photographs would definitely make this more significant (as increasing the sample size in any experiment does).
My point is that regardless of if a 4S shot better photos, the photographer could hiccup and get a blurrier photo than they might have taken last with a 3GS. In a less extreme circumstance, they could have just exhaled instead of hiccuping, in which case no one would have noticed and the error could be incorrectly attributed to the camera.
A great photograph with a camera phone requires a certain set of parameters that can almost entirely be individually measured outside of human interaction (and randomness). If you want good handheld performance, you need a fast exposure time, which can be measured from the EXIF data of each photo. If you want high dynamic range, measure the ratio of pure white and black pixels to the rest of the image (white and black is basically over/underexposed). The only thing that would be effected by motion that I can't think of how else to measure beyond being handheld is time to good focus (outside of crazy contraptions that result in more repeatable motion, like sticking your phone in a centrifuge), but there probably exists a way to do so while avoiding the inherent non-repeatability of humans behavior.
This post wasn't about the quality of the sensor it was about the quality of the photograph.