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 …
Double blinding is also no guarantee. There are so many ways that it can be compromised, even if inadvertently.
-
-
so what's the point of the Benveniste example you provided then?
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.