3 ms·
>It would be good to replicate it, just to put down some of the naysayers that quibble over a point or two saying it was staged or influenced. No, that is not
by nemo 2y ago
>It would be good to replicate it, just to put down some of the naysayers that quibble over a point or two saying it was staged or influenced.
No, that is not why it would be good to attempt to replicate. Shutting people down isn't the helpful part, but rather shedding light on the truth with evidence is the positive.
There's many strong reasons to consider the study was flawed (mentioned in the article and readily discoverable online), for the record, and the author of the paper's got all the classic signs of a crank, so skepticism would be healthy in this case, and shutting down skeptics would be very foolish.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago"And, to gain more knowledge about the causes and effects. We have more information today, and more data gathering. Would be good to do this study again in a modern lab." Yes, I did mention 'shedding light with evidence' as a positive thing. And yes, read article and many others. I don't think the flaws were as 'strong' as you are implying, hence, yes, would be good to replicate to prevent the arguments for dismissing it because there were 'some' flaws. Treat it like other studies. It was a first attempt, there were some interesting results, but also some 'flaws', hence, lets replicate and iron out the problems and see if we get some additional interesting results.