On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:15:58 GMT, Mydnight wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:46:53 -0600, Derek wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:12:30 GMT, Mydnight wrote:

It would be correlational, except that they used a pre-mid-post
testing procedure. They had baselines with which to compare.

Using a baseline comparision is still correlational and correlation
doesn't equal causation. I'll be more impressed when the study is
replicated a few times with perhaps more controls...but we don't know
the procedures. I'm not saying it's a bad study; I just want to see
the finer points of what exactly they were doing.

It's those missing "finer points" that would clarify a lot.

A double blind would impress me more than some baseline correlation
with a single subject design.

In this case, I'd laugh that study right off of the table. The
participants were drinking chamomile. There's no way to hide that fact
from both the participants and the researchers.


Beg to differ, again:

Oh, I love it when you beg.

Not everyone knows about tea or herbs so they could easily not know
what they were being tested for or drinking. It would be fairly easy
to hide from both to avoid any media contamination or outside thoughts
in the minds of the subjects or perhaps influencing the results.

My comment had nothing to do with knowledge of tea or herbs, and
everything to do with the senses. Unless you give them bottles of
Chamomile tea that has been doctored to be tasteless and odorless,
they'll know what they're taking. And, if you did that, it wouldn't
really be Chamomile tea.

And it wouldn't be easy to hide the purpose of the study.
Institutional Review Boards require a great deal of convincing before
they'll let a researcher be deceptive about the purpose of the study.

Double-blind is considered one of the better methods for testing for
anything, actually.

Yes, it is. It's also often technically impossible.

--
Derek

Sometimes the end doesn't justify the jeans.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:15:58 GMT, Mydnight wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:46:53 -0600, Derek wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:12:30 GMT, Mydnight wrote:

It would be correlational, except that they used a pre-mid-post
testing procedure. They had baselines with which to compare.

Using a baseline comparision is still correlational and correlation
doesn't equal causation. I'll be more impressed when the study is
replicated a few times with perhaps more controls...but we don't know
the procedures. I'm not saying it's a bad study; I just want to see
the finer points of what exactly they were doing.

It's those missing "finer points" that would clarify a lot.

A double blind would impress me more than some baseline correlation
with a single subject design.

In this case, I'd laugh that study right off of the table. The
participants were drinking chamomile. There's no way to hide that fact
from both the participants and the researchers.


Beg to differ, again:

Oh, I love it when you beg.

Not everyone knows about tea or herbs so they could easily not know
what they were being tested for or drinking. It would be fairly easy
to hide from both to avoid any media contamination or outside thoughts
in the minds of the subjects or perhaps influencing the results.

My comment had nothing to do with knowledge of tea or herbs, and
everything to do with the senses. Unless you give them bottles of
Chamomile tea that has been doctored to be tasteless and odorless,
they'll know what they're taking. And, if you did that, it wouldn't
really be Chamomile tea.

And it wouldn't be easy to hide the purpose of the study.
Institutional Review Boards require a great deal of convincing before
they'll let a researcher be deceptive about the purpose of the study.

Double-blind is considered one of the better methods for testing for
anything, actually.

Yes, it is. It's also often technically impossible.

--
Derek

Sometimes the end doesn't justify the jeans.

"Derek" wrote in message

My comment had nothing to do with knowledge of tea or herbs, and
everything to do with the senses. Unless you give them bottles of
Chamomile tea that has been doctored to be tasteless and odorless,

Chamomile has a very light taste and odor, it's very easy to cover it.

they'll know what they're taking. And, if you did that, it wouldn't
really be Chamomile tea.

You can easily give people 2 ressembling mixed tisanes, one with camomille
the other without. I am unable to feel if there really is camomille in most
of the Chinese "dessert drinks" (I mean the little bags containing sugar,
herbs and dry fruits to diluate in hot water for after-meal).

Kuri

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:20:47 +0900, kuri wrote:

"Derek" wrote in message

My comment had nothing to do with knowledge of tea or herbs, and
everything to do with the senses. Unless you give them bottles of
Chamomile tea that has been doctored to be tasteless and odorless,

Chamomile has a very light taste and odor, it's very easy to cover it.

My nose must be screwy. I find Chamomile's odor to be quite fragrant.

they'll know what they're taking. And, if you did that, it wouldn't
really be Chamomile tea.

You can easily give people 2 ressembling mixed tisanes, one with camomille
the other without. I am unable to feel if there really is camomille in most
of the Chinese "dessert drinks" (I mean the little bags containing sugar,
herbs and dry fruits to diluate in hot water for after-meal).

I stand corrected. I should know better than to assume the rest of the
world smells the way I do...

... that didn't come out quite right.

--
Derek

Never be afraid to share your dreams with the world.
Because there's nothing the world loves more than
the taste of really sweet dreams.

My comment had nothing to do with knowledge of tea or herbs, and
everything to do with the senses. Unless you give them bottles of
Chamomile tea that has been doctored to be tasteless and odorless,
they'll know what they're taking. And, if you did that, it wouldn't
really be Chamomile tea.

And how exactly are the people supposed to know what Chamomile tea
tastes like? Unless they knew about teas, or herbs (Chamomile being a
herb), they wouldn't know what they were drinking. Even if they knew
what they were drinking 100%, you didn't have to tell the purpose of
the study even if you were trying to measure behavioral effects.


And it wouldn't be easy to hide the purpose of the study.
Institutional Review Boards require a great deal of convincing before
they'll let a researcher be deceptive about the purpose of the study.

Have you ever been in front of one? I have, and it's not so difficult
to convince them; it especially would be easy to convince in the case
of this study. Deception comes into play more often when the study
could prove to be harmful to the subjects if they aren't informed the
wiser; not when just drinking a benign substance like Chamomile tea.
Also, it is required to debrief your subjects at the end of the study
to some extent as well, so the deception is resolved.

You could do a pretesting screen using a multiple choice test asking
them if they have any serious allergies such as ragweed or even put
Chamomile amongst many other options as to not let them know exactly
what they will be drinking.

Double-blind is considered one of the better methods for testing for
anything, actually.

Yes, it is. It's also often technically impossible.


It's quite easy, and it's done in most important studies. Most
scientists don't accept less than this when the study is on serious
topics like medicines and treatments. Reason being because if the
effect that the scientist doesn't want occurs, he may try to throw out
the subject or the evidence to try and prove his point with contrary
data with different subjects. A baseline design isn't seen as the
preferred method; it's the method used when you cannot find a better
design to use or if the study doesn't merit one. If you take any
Medical or Behavioral science 101, this is discussed throughly when
the lecture is about tests and measures.

Why are you trying to refute Medical Science for the past 100 years?



Mydnight

--------------------
thus then i turn me from my countries light, to dwell in the solemn shades of an endless night.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:58:00 GMT, Mydnight wrote:

My comment had nothing to do with knowledge of tea or herbs, and
everything to do with the senses. Unless you give them bottles of
Chamomile tea that has been doctored to be tasteless and odorless,
they'll know what they're taking. And, if you did that, it wouldn't
really be Chamomile tea.

And how exactly are the people supposed to know what Chamomile tea
tastes like? Unless they knew about teas, or herbs (Chamomile being a
herb), they wouldn't know what they were drinking. Even if they knew
what they were drinking 100%, you didn't have to tell the purpose of
the study even if you were trying to measure behavioral effects.

No, you wouldn't have to tell the purpose of the study. But in a true
double blind experiment, IRB would require that the participants be
told what the control and experimental groups will be taking. What
will not be told is to which group the participant is assigned.

It's called "informed consent." And IRBs are sticklers over this.


And it wouldn't be easy to hide the purpose of the study.
Institutional Review Boards require a great deal of convincing before
they'll let a researcher be deceptive about the purpose of the study.

Have you ever been in front of one? I have, and it's not so difficult
to convince them; it especially would be easy to convince in the case
of this study. Deception comes into play more often when the study
could prove to be harmful to the subjects if they aren't informed the
wiser; not when just drinking a benign substance like Chamomile tea.
Also, it is required to debrief your subjects at the end of the study
to some extent as well, so the deception is resolved.

Have I ever been in front of one? No. Have my research proposals? Yes.

And, particularly when your study involves the ingestion of some
substance, informed consent will require that they know what they
might be ingesting.

You could do a pretesting screen using a multiple choice test asking
them if they have any serious allergies such as ragweed or even put
Chamomile amongst many other options as to not let them know exactly
what they will be drinking.

Possibly.

Double-blind is considered one of the better methods for testing for
anything, actually.

Yes, it is. It's also often technically impossible.


It's quite easy, and it's done in most important studies. Most
scientists don't accept less than this when the study is on serious
topics like medicines and treatments. Reason being because if the
effect that the scientist doesn't want occurs, he may try to throw out
the subject or the evidence to try and prove his point with contrary
data with different subjects. A baseline design isn't seen as the
preferred method; it's the method used when you cannot find a better
design to use or if the study doesn't merit one. If you take any
Medical or Behavioral science 101, this is discussed throughly when
the lecture is about tests and measures.

No, it's not "quite easy." It actually takes a lot of effort, which is
why the "most important studies" have such value.

I've spent the last 10 years of my life learning about research
methods and statistics. You're not saying anything with which I
disagree.

Why are you trying to refute Medical Science for the past 100 years?

I'm not. I'm refuting your description of how easy it is to perform a
double blind study.

--
Derek

SAM: Teal'c, how do Jaffa couples handle their problems?
TEAL'C: On Chulak, a dispute between a man and a woman that cannot
be resolved necessitates a pledge break. It must be requested
by one and granted by the other.
DANIEL: And if that doesn't work?
TEAL'C: A weapon is required.

(Stargate-SG1, "Affinity")

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:58:00 GMT, Mydnight wrote:

My comment had nothing to do with knowledge of tea or herbs, and
everything to do with the senses. Unless you give them bottles of
Chamomile tea that has been doctored to be tasteless and odorless,
they'll know what they're taking. And, if you did that, it wouldn't
really be Chamomile tea.

And how exactly are the people supposed to know what Chamomile tea
tastes like? Unless they knew about teas, or herbs (Chamomile being a
herb), they wouldn't know what they were drinking. Even if they knew
what they were drinking 100%, you didn't have to tell the purpose of
the study even if you were trying to measure behavioral effects.

No, you wouldn't have to tell the purpose of the study. But in a true
double blind experiment, IRB would require that the participants be
told what the control and experimental groups will be taking. What
will not be told is to which group the participant is assigned.

It's called "informed consent." And IRBs are sticklers over this.


And it wouldn't be easy to hide the purpose of the study.
Institutional Review Boards require a great deal of convincing before
they'll let a researcher be deceptive about the purpose of the study.

Have you ever been in front of one? I have, and it's not so difficult
to convince them; it especially would be easy to convince in the case
of this study. Deception comes into play more often when the study
could prove to be harmful to the subjects if they aren't informed the
wiser; not when just drinking a benign substance like Chamomile tea.
Also, it is required to debrief your subjects at the end of the study
to some extent as well, so the deception is resolved.

Have I ever been in front of one? No. Have my research proposals? Yes.

And, particularly when your study involves the ingestion of some
substance, informed consent will require that they know what they
might be ingesting.

You could do a pretesting screen using a multiple choice test asking
them if they have any serious allergies such as ragweed or even put
Chamomile amongst many other options as to not let them know exactly
what they will be drinking.

Possibly.

Double-blind is considered one of the better methods for testing for
anything, actually.

Yes, it is. It's also often technically impossible.


It's quite easy, and it's done in most important studies. Most
scientists don't accept less than this when the study is on serious
topics like medicines and treatments. Reason being because if the
effect that the scientist doesn't want occurs, he may try to throw out
the subject or the evidence to try and prove his point with contrary
data with different subjects. A baseline design isn't seen as the
preferred method; it's the method used when you cannot find a better
design to use or if the study doesn't merit one. If you take any
Medical or Behavioral science 101, this is discussed throughly when
the lecture is about tests and measures.

No, it's not "quite easy." It actually takes a lot of effort, which is
why the "most important studies" have such value.

I've spent the last 10 years of my life learning about research
methods and statistics. You're not saying anything with which I
disagree.

Why are you trying to refute Medical Science for the past 100 years?

I'm not. I'm refuting your description of how easy it is to perform a
double blind study.

--
Derek

SAM: Teal'c, how do Jaffa couples handle their problems?
TEAL'C: On Chulak, a dispute between a man and a woman that cannot
be resolved necessitates a pledge break. It must be requested
by one and granted by the other.
DANIEL: And if that doesn't work?
TEAL'C: A weapon is required.

(Stargate-SG1, "Affinity")

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:20:18 -0600, Derek wrote:

I've spent the last 10 years of my life learning about research
methods and statistics. You're not saying anything with which I
disagree.

Ok, that's not entirely accurate, because obviously you're saying
something with which I disagree. Duh.

What I disagree with is whether it is easy and how much information
the subject would be required to know. That baseline comparison is not
as rigorous as double-blind is *not* something with which I disagree.

I just thought I should clarify that.

--
Derek

The nice thing about losing one's marbles is that you only have to
pick up the ones you want.