Actually, in the case of homeopathy and Benveniste, Randi was spot on. Also, peer review is unfortunately not very good at detecting systematic error that derives from scientists fooling themselves. It's even worse at detecting outright fraud. 1/https://twitter.com/Hayleystevens/status/1076431734307205120 …
-
-
there's something to be said in having hands on experience at trickery/fraud/illusion for detecting it. I'd expect another lab tech to be able to find anything shady I do over a chemist/doctor/biologist
-
Even not really that shady stuff. Like "Oh, that pH is a little higher than expected, if I read it again in 30 seconds I'll still be within procedure but it'll go down a bit from absorbing atmospheric CO2 and then I definitely won't get asked to re-sample.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Agreed, and there are scientists who study flaws in human reason and sense perception as well, although I doubt many are skilled in the practice of deception.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.