Yes, and without rigorous scientific controls, predictions can be made to look much, much better than they really are. The study being discussed didn't even per

Yes, and without rigorous scientific controls, predictions can be made to look much, much better than they really are. The study being discussed didn't even perform a statistical analysis based on the null hypothesis or produce a p-factor -- the possibility that the result came about because of chance. These are basic to science, and in their absence, the result is anecdote, not science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value Quote: "In statistical significance testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic result at least as extreme or as close to the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true." Chance occurrences can be made to look very convincing. Consider the "Miracle Man" scheme used in investing -- on first hearing about it, many people assume it's not possible: http://www.arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_Man http://www.arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_M...