3 ms·
>with the help of ~100 volunteers who beta tested it and offered feedback [1]. Random testing with no controls, oversight or monitoring is useless.
by aroch 13y ago
>with the help of ~100 volunteers who beta tested it and offered feedback [1].
Random testing with no controls, oversight or monitoring is useless.
- gnaritas 13y agoUnfortunately, anecdotes are enough for most people; they have no concept of sound science.
- nickff 13y ago"Random testing with no controls, oversight or monitoring is" how we arrived at the current human diet.
- cracell 13y agoBut on many orders of magnitude larger than 100 people.
- tossacct 13y agocontrols = natural selection, survival of the fittest oversight, monitoring = culture, language, history Science has the potential to speed up the process of knowledge acquisition. Our current human diet is the result of thousands of years of trial and error. A scientist attempts to follow cause and effect, minimizing confounding variables that obscure cause and effect. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_variables.shtml http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_...
- dkersten 13y agoI'll add to that by saying: a year isn't really a long time and I'd argue not nearly long enough to understand what the long term effects this stuff has on ones health, both positive and negative.
- sowhatquestion 13y agoThey might have had controls, for all we know. The team shared many but not all details of the process, as is their prerogative. Rhinehart is an engineer by background, and his blog posts ( http://www.robrhinehart.com http://www.robrhinehart.com ) evince a serious respect for the scientific method. Now that version 1.0 has been finalized and is shipping, I think we will definitely see a lot more testing of Soylent from both inside and outside the organization.
- shas3 13y agoIt doesn't matter if their blog does lip-service to the scientific method. No pun intended, but the proof is in eating the pudding, that is, in doing science.