Re: Cryogenics Bat

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 11:57 5/11/99 -0400, Chuck Britton wrote:
...
> > Since the trumpet/bat/... look identical for treated and untreated
> > cases, this is an ideal sort of candidate for double-blind testing which
> > would be accepted as definitive if done well.
>
> ...
> it's gotta be a truly blind test and DOUBLE blind is best (so neither
> the hitter nor the judge knows which bat hits which ball.) Only after
> the test results are completed can the correlation between which bat
> was used be revealed)...

> Chuck Britton

An expert player expects to know about the instrument he is using.
 So a suitable blind test implies for me, that the instrument is
identified as 'treated' or untreated' to the player (at random)
and the results may then be expected to take account of psychological
 boosting effects from the preferred condition.
(This is not necessarily in conflict with Chuck's 'blind' definition)
   Placebo effects are no less real than other treatments!

The ratio of variation due to expectation vs variation due to physical
treatments might then well answer Marie Pool's question: how much of the
improvement is due to the cryogenic treatment and how much is associated
with 'great expectations...'.

Brian Whatcott