Quote:
Originally Posted by Barty
I don't think most people know how to turn down the brightness or think about doing it.
|
Plus sales of the iPad mini, which people hold closer to their eyes than the iPad devices used in the study, and thus likely would have given even stronger findings, are exceeding full-sized iPad sales:
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/28/...pple-expected/
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
It doesn't say anything that wasn't known beforehand . . .
|
So, all studies replicating prior findings get to be dismissed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
It's all about bringing in the grant money.
|
So every scientific study since the grant system began (1950's?) can be dismissed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Kinda like the way cyclamates were "demonstrated" to be unsafe for rat consumption:
|
No, because the cyclamate dose given the rats was, I believe, dozens of times higher than what people would get. Here the experiment involves people, not rats, and, while the dose might have been on the high side, there's also an argument that it was on the low side (given that the mini is held closer).
Also, those results weren't replicated, resulting in a new scientific consensus (which is why cyclamate sweetners are now legal in most countries).
I realize that there is such a thing as scientific fraud:
http://retractionwatch.com/
However, you don't discover it with the near-group-hate process going on in this thread.