3 ms·
It is very different and that is exactly the point. Experiments are not supposed to mimic the natural condition in which an effect is found, they are supposed t
by PhineasRex 14y ago
It is very different and that is exactly the point. Experiments are not supposed to mimic the natural condition in which an effect is found, they are supposed to isolate the effect being tested and eliminate all confounding variables.
It might be the case that the "sense of being stared at" is real but it could easily be a combination of ordinary senses. By isolating the confounding variables scientists can determine whether this is an independent effect.
- exodust 14y agoI don't disagree. It could easily be a combination of ordinary senses. Scientists not happy with people poly-filling the knowledge gaps with fictional ideas, have no choice but to improve their equipment for even more data capture and analysis. It may be that the very act of staring at someone actually alters or influences something in the physical world, as those flowers do we've recently learned.... >"electrical fields—may work in concert with these other cues to provide extremely nuanced details about pollination status." Along those lines, it's plausible that there's processes at work with staring we're currently unaware of, waiting for science to discover. Better that fictional ideas about possible nature of matter come from scientists anyway. Having a go at guessing where science may uncover new mechanisms, or where current science deserves more attention, is a good thing to have a go at. It's the equivalent of drawing attention to a new patch of ground for a fresh archeological dig, he's not actually claiming on the TEDx stage to have dug it up and found an alien artifact.