Stephen Black wrote:
> It's a long, meandering article, with much neurobabble. If you read
> far enough, you find out that it's a laboratory simulation study
> involving just 6 subjects, 3 (count 'em) experimentals and 3
> controls. I don't have time to do more than have a quick look at it
> again. But the word "blind" as in "assessment of brain wave results
> was done blindly, without knowledge of the subject from which it was
> obtained ", does NOT appear there (forgive the shouting, but I don't
> want that statement misread).
I hate to put my two cents' worth in on the side of something that does have a
lot of signs of quackery, but just before the Results section, the article does tell
us that the assessment of the brain wave results was done automatically by the "MERMER
System data analysis algorithm", rather than subjectively by researchers who might
know what to expect to see.
That being said, I'm disturbed too by the catchy name, the suggestion of
infallibility, and worst of all, the use of words like "breakthrough" and
"revolutionary".
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
