"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

Also from the 'lay POV', I would like to say that the trouble with these
'snake oil bashing' sessions is that they are never cut and dried
conclusive

Afraid you have missed the point of my posting(s). They are not what you
assert. They are to bring scientifically critical thinking to assessing a
document which is presented by its authors/publishers to provide a
'scientific' basis for their claims.


Yep - allus ends up as a 'snake oil bashing' session however it starts! :-)



The point of objective measurements is that they are of assessable
accuracy
or not,


Yep. Often make the same point myself, but that's because I come from a
'place' where people traditionally add an eighth of an inch to the actual
measurement, anyway!!

;-)


and are relevant to a given idea or not. The outcome results either
can be used to support (or falsify) a scientific view or not. These
can all be determined by the scientific method which the authors
say they are using to support their claims.


Sure.



Done correctly, none of that is a matter of personal opinion. Hence such
measurement and conclusions can, indeed, be 'cut and dried and conclusive'
but only *if* done correctly and appropriately.


I would agree entirely but in reality it doesn't matter how the measurements
come out, it still comes down to the subjective in the end - people won't
believe what they don't want to hear or see, but are only too willing to
believe what they want to. Hence the Russ Andrews machine exists in the
first place!

Reminds me of the story of the filmshow of a *mock-up* of the
Monitor/Merrimac battle (Hampton Roads) that travelled America for years and
which employed obvious wooden models and dummy charges to such great effect
that people apparently cheered and generally behaved as though they were
witnessing the real thing!