3 ms·
I would like to add that I don't blame either these researchers or the ones with that drive. The most honest expression of the scientific method is to try as h
by bayesian_horse 8y ago
I would like to add that I don't blame either these researchers or the ones with that drive.
The most honest expression of the scientific method is to try as hard as you can to disprove your own theory.
Sometimes it's just really really hard not to fool yourself, and statistics could be called the science of how to not screw yourself scientifically.
- DoctorOetker 8y agodid they in fact physically separate the tissue in 2 halves? or was it a localized cut? even if they separated in 2 halves, how did they measure the electrical activity? with conductors? or optically? even if optically, did they assume light could not cross from one sensor to the other or did they prevent light from the first optical electric field sensor from entering the second optical electric field sensor, say by using different wavelengths and filter for each? even if they excluded optical leaking, you still need to exclude the possibility that there is simply an ambient electric field in the lab whose correlation at 2 points we are measuring. So you need a control setup without brain tissue to compare the correlations. Otherwise we might be investigating the equivalent of: dot of light moving at twice the speed of light! ... by reflecting a laser beam of a fast rotating mirror on a distant screen... yes the dot can move faster than light, but the dot is not a physical signal, the dots at different times are separate signals with a common cause, and no signal was speeding beyond c... at some point you realize that there may be more important questions to invest time and effort in...