What Physicists Don't Know (was the Zapno...)

[Brian Whatcott <betwys@DIRECTVINTERNET.COM>]

> Hugh Haskell wrote:
>  >
>  > The problem with all of these techniques are that they have had minimal
>  >  scientific studies done of their efficacy. I don't know how one
>  > would do a double-blind study of arthroscopic surgery, (snip...)


> At 09:04 AM 8/1/02, James McClean wrote:
> I think the reference was to an article in Time or Newsweek or some
> such. ...

> Dr. James McLean


Hmmm...so it turns out that Hugh Haskell is unaware of the lengths needed
 to provide double blind statistics in surgury.

I am not particularly surprised by this admission. Do physicists in general
need to know  of statistical techniques and the experimental designs called
for in the face of great variability and uncertainty?

And it turns out that James McClean supposes that popular weekly
newsmagazine reportage  would probably be the source of a medical
experimental finding documented in the usual medical journals.

Should I by analogy suppose that unreferenced advances in physics
mentioned here were extracted from such magazines as
Popular Science?

It seems to me (insofar as I have sampled it) that this product  thread
has not yet evoked the very loftiest cogitation of which I know this list
membership is capable.

Respectfully,

Brian Whatcott
  Altus OK                      Eureka!