Warp wrote:

>   You wouldn't believe how easily scientists themselves are fooled by
> magicians and tricksters because they, for whatever reason, don't understand
> the importance of some of the most basic scientifical testing, such as
> double-blind controlled tests.
> 
>   The "double" there is quite important. Many scientists are way too
> confident on their own capacity to not to influence the test results and
> to interpret the results impartially.

It does happen. For example, some scientist designs a chemical that's 
supposed to interact with a naturally occuring molecule in the human 
body. They mix the chemicals in the lab, and it does what it's supposed 
to. They pour the chemical onto a cell culture, and it does what it's 
supposed to. They inject it into a mouse and it does what it's supposed 
to. They inject the stuff into a human and... well, the effect smaller 
than we expected, but it is still there.

Except that no, no it isn't. You're just *expecting* it to be there. 
Confirmation bais.

In this instance, however, it seems unavoidable that the creators are 
fully aware that their device is completely useless, and are simply out 
to make a quick buck. The device has no remotely plausible mechanism of 
action, and a trivial test quickly demonstrates that it is ineffective.

As an aside, I saw some physicist has built a flying machine that defies 
current understanding. The device really does fly. And the scientists 
really have no clue why it flies. (As best as I can tell, the device is 
some sticks of wood with wires strapped to it, and you pump very high 
voltage, high frequency electricity through it, and this makes it 
levitate for some reason...)

Post a reply to this message