I'm going to ask a reasonable question. Do you have so much faith in DB tests, that their results change your opinions and even your life course?
Why I am asking this is because recently I have heard evidence that:
Many Vitamins, above a residual minimum, have been shown to be shown to be detrimental to your health.
While all wines do not taste the same, it is the price of the wine that usually determines its quality.
Mood enhancers, such as Prozac, are really placebos, and a waste of money.
These opinions were all determined by double blind listening tests, and I am sure we can find many others.
Now I realize that some of you will find my question annoying, but why? IF 'scientifically based' double blind tests show something, should we not change our previous opinions and experience and follow the results of the tests? Are we not shown to be 'weak willed' and so easily fooled that we spend our extra income on 'life or mood improvers' that are just in our imagination? Where does this lead us?
Why I am asking this is because recently I have heard evidence that:
Many Vitamins, above a residual minimum, have been shown to be shown to be detrimental to your health.
While all wines do not taste the same, it is the price of the wine that usually determines its quality.
Mood enhancers, such as Prozac, are really placebos, and a waste of money.
These opinions were all determined by double blind listening tests, and I am sure we can find many others.
Now I realize that some of you will find my question annoying, but why? IF 'scientifically based' double blind tests show something, should we not change our previous opinions and experience and follow the results of the tests? Are we not shown to be 'weak willed' and so easily fooled that we spend our extra income on 'life or mood improvers' that are just in our imagination? Where does this lead us?
Yes, absolutely. Many things I thought were true did not turn out to be so. That's the nice thing about approaching things with an open mind and no financial stake in the outcome.
Re drug trials- that's a whole separate set of questions, but DB is absolutely necessary (though not sufficient). Of course, that's true for any experiment involving humans.
No.
Cite?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366660
Rationality.
I am curious to read your results
I'll expect that he can find some difference at levels about a million times lower than any human hearing threshold, and at levels rivaling the error bars. IOW, exactly the same as testing two brands of plain jane resistors. It's already evident that there are no larger effects.
Actually many practice the great circle method. You face 180 degrees away thus going the longer path.
Of course the fellow who was here used to face north east! Not really sure about his sense of direction.
However my favorite was at a local beach. There was a group in the shade of a wall facing the wall doing their prayers. What made it interesting was the wall was to the first aid station and in the middle of the white wall was a nicely painted large red cross.
To me the most interesting thing about perception of wine quality is not the correlation of price with perceived quality in double-blind tasting, which is weak, but the effect of knowledge of price in sighted tastings. In fact I recall there was even some work presented involving brain scans that showed regions activated when the taster was informed the wine was famously expensive.
Some sighted tastings I attended, rather free-for-all affairs that were, frankly, rather gross, had people screaming about and clamoring to get their hands on then-recent-vintage first growth Bordeaux that were practically undrinkable, except that real experts could conceivably divine what their potential was based on years of experience. However they were known to be the most expensive wines to be poured during that event.
Some sighted tastings I attended, rather free-for-all affairs that were, frankly, rather gross, had people screaming about and clamoring to get their hands on then-recent-vintage first growth Bordeaux that were practically undrinkable, except that real experts could conceivably divine what their potential was based on years of experience. However they were known to be the most expensive wines to be poured during that event.
Although I didn't hear that specific broadcast, I believe that's the doctor who has made something of a career of attacking vitamins and supplements. He is said to select studies with great care that fit his point of view and ignores any that don't.
Yes, you cited that article before and didn't understand it then, either.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.