3 ms·

> It's not trash. A single-blind trial is much better than nothing. Let's test this idea with a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a r

by lutusp 13y ago

> It's not trash. A single-blind trial is much better than nothing. Let's test this idea with a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it. Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that non-scientists recognize for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no? The answer is obviously no, and to establish the reliability of dried gourds as a cure for the common cold, we would need a double-blind experiment -- both the experimenter and the subject would need to be blinded about which treatment is being applied.

dllthomas 13y ago
Single blind doesn't mean there is no control group!
- lutusp 13y ago
  Never claimed otherwise. My example was intentionally as simple as possible. Also, absent a control group, one can have control experiments interleaved with research experiments -- this is a common practice where resources are limited.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "Never claimed otherwise. My example was intentionally as simple as possible." This is disingenuous. The primary reason your example was flawed is the lack of a control group, and your phrasing in establishing that it is flawed more or less points that out. Using that to condemn single-blind studies is inane - if it were double blind but there was no control, it would give the same result.

by lutusp 13y ago

dllthomas 13y ago

Single blind doesn't mean there is no control group!

lutusp 13y ago
Never claimed otherwise. My example was intentionally as simple as possible. Also, absent a control group, one can have control experiments interleaved with research experiments -- this is a common practice where resources are limited.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "Never claimed otherwise. My example was intentionally as simple as possible." This is disingenuous. The primary reason your example was flawed is the lack of a control group, and your phrasing in establishing that it is flawed more or less points that out. Using that to condemn single-blind studies is inane - if it were double blind but there was no control, it would give the same result.