I'm happy people have begun to see that scientific tests generally have massive assumptions hidden deep within them, or quietly brushed underneath them. Person

I'm happy people have begun to see that scientific tests generally have massive assumptions hidden deep within them, or quietly brushed underneath them. Personally, I find this to be a welcome change from the typical "oooh-look-at-the-shiny-graphs" mentality that has become so pervasive on HN with regards to performance testing. Keep up this spirit of questioning, and you'll discover a lot of interesting secrets. (For example, a placebo is 87% as effective as the 5 major antidepressant brands. Also, the CIE 1931 "color space" is a flawed system which is only roughly accurate.) In general, anyone who presents statistics (of anything) should be subjected to a lot of skepticism. Scientific knowledge can only advance by truly testing one variable and only one variable.