First, I didn't say anything about 'proving a hypothesis'. Instead, I described testing a hypothesis. State a hypothesis, test, evaluate the results and draw a

First, I didn't say anything about 'proving a hypothesis'. Instead, I described testing a hypothesis. State a hypothesis, test, evaluate the results and draw a conclusion. What you do with the results of the conclusions is up to you. I personally enjoy fishing, on the other hand, reading this article will give me pause WRT fishing as a sport in the future. I do think the article has a slant and agenda, but it's an article about i terpreting/applying the results, not a scientific paper. The issue I have with the question presented is that it supposes that the experiments were conducted with some sort of bias. My point is that a properly designed experiment will test a hypothesis and yield evidence that points to some discernable truth. There is nothing different going on here that is any different from other experiments.