3 ms·

Too many people, like you, are hung up on "proof". Yes, we should be aware of the difference between hypothesis exploration and a solid demonstration. But tha

Too many people, like you, are hung up on "proof". Yes, we should be aware of the difference between hypothesis exploration and a solid demonstration. But that doesn't mean that hypothesis exploration is pointless! An experiment like this one is entirely appropriate when trying to decide whether a hypothesis is worth exploring further; setting up a more elaborate study would have been premature. So when you say "his experiment proves nothing" I think you are judging it by standards it was not, and should not have been, intended to meet. Don't focus only on the results of science; without the process, there would be no interesting results.

grhino 16y ago
The experimental procedures he went through gave little additional support for his argument than simply stating: "I noticed I sleep better when I stand on one leg for a while". The statistical analysis of the study does not provide any additional weight to the statement. In fact, the statistical analysis is more of a distraction because he didn't control for an important influence in self-evaluating health. If a person expects that taking an action will improve their health, it's very likely that the person will think he feels better after taking that action.
- beagle3 16y ago
  While it is not rigorously scientific in the sense that physics is, it is compares very favorably to findings in the fields of medicine and nutrition. (Yes, they are much worse than you imagine). And while this document cannot reflect this, I've been following Seth Roberts for a few years now -- he is the best kind of scientist, with a remarkable talent for objective measurement of oneself. While this cannot be generalized to other people easily, as far as it refers to himself, it's probably way better than most medical results published in the last 20 years.
Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
No, hypothesis exploration is entirely valid, it's what science is based on. My issue is that he proceeds to draw very strongly worded conclusions (using the phrase "beyond doubt") based on very weak evidence and presenting the experiment in a way which both fails to highlight the inherent flaws and indeed hides them behind a veil of pseudo-scientific and statistical language. Yes explore hypotheses, present anecdotal evidence, but make it clear that's what you're doing and explain why. The next step here isn't to try 5 and 6 leg stands, it's to try it with people who don't understand what is being tested and remove the worst of the flaws in the methodology. As for being hung up on "proof", yes guilty as charged, but that's really not my issue which is don't claim proof when you don't have it. Which in claiming things "beyond any doubt" (which he does) this is what he is doing.

grhino 16y ago

The experimental procedures he went through gave little additional support for his argument than simply stating: "I noticed I sleep better when I stand on one leg for a while". The statistical analysis of the study does not provide any additional weight to the statement. In fact, the statistical analysis is more of a distraction because he didn't control for an important influence in self-evaluating health. If a person expects that taking an action will improve their health, it's very likely that the person will think he feels better after taking that action.

beagle3 16y ago
While it is not rigorously scientific in the sense that physics is, it is compares very favorably to findings in the fields of medicine and nutrition. (Yes, they are much worse than you imagine). And while this document cannot reflect this, I've been following Seth Roberts for a few years now -- he is the best kind of scientist, with a remarkable talent for objective measurement of oneself. While this cannot be generalized to other people easily, as far as it refers to himself, it's probably way better than most medical results published in the last 20 years.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago

No, hypothesis exploration is entirely valid, it's what science is based on. My issue is that he proceeds to draw very strongly worded conclusions (using the phrase "beyond doubt") based on very weak evidence and presenting the experiment in a way which both fails to highlight the inherent flaws and indeed hides them behind a veil of pseudo-scientific and statistical language. Yes explore hypotheses, present anecdotal evidence, but make it clear that's what you're doing and explain why. The next step here isn't to try 5 and 6 leg stands, it's to try it with people who don't understand what is being tested and remove the worst of the flaws in the methodology. As for being hung up on "proof", yes guilty as charged, but that's really not my issue which is don't claim proof when you don't have it. Which in claiming things "beyond any doubt" (which he does) this is what he is doing.