PMB,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not a 'science doubter' in any sense of the word- and I agree with you about double-blind tests and was very pro-double-blind tests in my post.
My issue, and I'd guess that you're sympathetic to this, is with people who extrapolate a little too far from scientific results and/or who call on science "as a drunk uses a lightpost- for support, not illumination". In professional scientific journals, published results of experiments always seem very tentative and limited in scope- I'd say proper science is usually rather tentative.
This guy (and I enjoyed the read, kcarlile- thanks) struck me as not tentative, step-by-step, objective, citing other literature, and 'scientific', but informal and informative. There's definitely a need for information like this, but the article was definitely not 'scientific' though he tries to come off as a scientist.
He does make a lot of good points, but he doesn't come off as what he says he is. He's saying "I'm a scientist" to back up his claims, yet not being scientific, and that's a little bothersome.
So, I really enjoyed the read, and I think he's right on more points than not. But it's only a collection of assertions, not proof of something.
Good night guys,
Mike
