Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science"

Posted by andy19191 on April 28, 2006 at 11:53:22:
Disagreeing with this statement (I agree that Ben Goldacre is most certainly disagreeing with you):
"But the most striking parallel is the widespread notion in the hi-
fi community that blinded trials - where you ask listeners to
identify a cable without knowing if it's cheap or expensive - are
somehow intrinsically flawed."
does not mean this:
"But Mr. Goldacre appears to be making the naÃ¯ve assumption that
the mere fact that a test is blind inherentlyâ€”his word was
intrinsicallyâ€”confers legitimacy on the test and its results. That
assumption, I suggest, is 'bad science'â€”even voodoo."
Disagreeing with an assertion that blind trials are intrinsically floored does not mean agreeing with an assertion that all blind trials and their results are legitimate. As far as I can see, this is not stated, implied or hinted at anywhere else in the article either.