No, you have it completely backwards. This is actually a very valid use of the scientific method to test a completely scientifically valid and reasonable hypo

No, you have it completely backwards. This is actually a very valid use of the scientific method to test a completely scientifically valid and reasonable hypothesis that produced a negative result. It goes like this... Observation: Some new-agey quacks are selling products claiming that "grounding" has beneficial effects on physiology, but reasonable people doubt doubt this. Hypothesis: "Grounding" is complete nonsense, a "grounded" organism functions exactly the same as an ungrounded one. This hypothesis is easily justifiable by undergraduate physics and biology. Experiment: In this study we'll show that there's no difference in recovery after eccentric muscle loading in a grounded organisms than in an ungrounded one. Ooops! Negative result... hypothesis falsified? OK, I'm joking... sort of. The best scientists try to look at any phenomenon from as many angles as possible, even, and especially, absurd ones.