> it's the experiment that's never been replicated, not the conclusions > This doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusions, and while criticism of the method

> it's the experiment that's never been replicated, not the conclusions > This doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusions, and while criticism of the method is entirely valid we have to acknowledge that this is a data set of one. The scientific method moves from hypothesis to experiment to conclusions. If repeated experiments do not support the hypothesis, then there are no conclusions. > This doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusions, and while criticism of the method is entirely valid we have to acknowledge that this is a data set of one. A data set of one is worthless - no better than random. The number of successful experiments needs to be statistically significant to support the hypothesis.