Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbncc5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Testable Hypothesis (re: Sugar)
Message-ID: <48@bbncc5.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 21:51:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncc5.48
Posted: Fri Aug 30 21:51:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 18:01:55 EDT
References: <1880@aecom.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 27

I have to mention that this "science" of kinesiology was used
in exactly the same way by a Dr. Diamond at an Audio Engineering
Society meeting to describe why "digital audio" is bad for you.
Golden ears, but weak muscles, that's me.

Surely Craig is having quite a laugh here, since he knows that
this is an uncontrolled experiment: all the participants know
the hypothesis, and when they receive the "active" (or inactive)
agent.  This is isn't even single-blind, let alone double-blind.
A less useless experiment would be as follows:

	weights are used (good show, Craig) to standardize the pressure.
	an "inactive" crystalline substance would also be administered
		to the tongue, and if the experimental procedure allowed
		it, administering nothing would also be interesting.
		Some way of hiding the crystal (or lack of same) before
		dropping it on the tongue so that neither subject nor
		experimenter could know beforehand.
	true double-blind testing, with randomized order of administration
		of all of the substances.

Barring this, the experiment is about as useful for increasing our
knowledge about sugar as a typical posting by WS or TS.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA