3 ms·

Evolution does not optimise away. It removes disadvantageous mutations. I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven". Then, I'm afraid,

by sambeau 15y ago

Evolution does not optimise away. It removes disadvantageous mutations. I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven". Then, I'm afraid, you are not a scientist. This is not an invisible dragon: they have done an experiment and produced a result. If the effect is accurate, measurable and repeatable then it is fact. If you can scientifically prove the existence of invisible dragons through experiment then I would be prepared to believe in them. Have you ever seen a germ? An electron? A black hole? Here be dragons!

Tichy 15y ago
Somebody posted a link to a comment on this, which seems to imply that the experiment they did is not really published - it might as well be fiction. Do you know the invisible dragon story (I think by Carl Sagan)? It is not the same kind of invisible as an electron. And the bit about science is nonsense. Once you have acquired some knowledge you can use it. For example once you have worked out physics, you can build bridges. You don't need to build 100 bridges for every bridge you want to build to verify that your bridge will stand. It is true, I don't know the claim here is false. All I am saying is that it is unlikely to be true. That is not science of course. Nobody would publish a paper about a belief. There are concepts like Occams Razor that are also part of science. We never know anything anyway - we only have degrees of belief.
- sambeau 15y ago
  Follow the link and there is a published paper. In fact there are two: one showing their experiment with light emitting earbuds and the other showing possible light receptors buried in the brain. This is not my field (and I assume it is not yours) so I cannot refute their claims. So far they have done an experiment and they have a significant result—in fact it is so significant that it is easily observable (10 out of 13 rather than the expected 6.5). There are three likely reasons for this result 1) Experimental error 2) Placebo effect 3) Brains react to light. The likelihood is probably in that order. If they, or another team, can repeat this finding in a double-blind test then I will be comfortable in accepting it. This is not bad science. It may be questionable business practice to move so soon on this (especially before a double-blind test) but it isn't total quackery.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    If you are so pedantic about science, then other scientists should be able to repeat the experiment and get similar results. Before that happened, we don't know anything. There have been several people who claimed they invented cold fusion, too. It happens all the time (people claiming wrong things).

by sambeau 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago

Somebody posted a link to a comment on this, which seems to imply that the experiment they did is not really published - it might as well be fiction. Do you know the invisible dragon story (I think by Carl Sagan)? It is not the same kind of invisible as an electron. And the bit about science is nonsense. Once you have acquired some knowledge you can use it. For example once you have worked out physics, you can build bridges. You don't need to build 100 bridges for every bridge you want to build to verify that your bridge will stand. It is true, I don't know the claim here is false. All I am saying is that it is unlikely to be true. That is not science of course. Nobody would publish a paper about a belief. There are concepts like Occams Razor that are also part of science. We never know anything anyway - we only have degrees of belief.

sambeau 15y ago
Follow the link and there is a published paper. In fact there are two: one showing their experiment with light emitting earbuds and the other showing possible light receptors buried in the brain. This is not my field (and I assume it is not yours) so I cannot refute their claims. So far they have done an experiment and they have a significant result—in fact it is so significant that it is easily observable (10 out of 13 rather than the expected 6.5). There are three likely reasons for this result 1) Experimental error 2) Placebo effect 3) Brains react to light. The likelihood is probably in that order. If they, or another team, can repeat this finding in a double-blind test then I will be comfortable in accepting it. This is not bad science. It may be questionable business practice to move so soon on this (especially before a double-blind test) but it isn't total quackery.
- Tichy 15y ago
  If you are so pedantic about science, then other scientists should be able to repeat the experiment and get similar results. Before that happened, we don't know anything. There have been several people who claimed they invented cold fusion, too. It happens all the time (people claiming wrong things).