If we want to get to the reality where confidence in the efficacy of things is well-founded on rigorous experimentation and analysis, then we need to get there, one step at a time. Instead of tearing people down and saying that their efforts to improve themselves is crap, you could be offering constructive criticism. Even just bring up one question that would have made it a better experiment, so that when a reader here decides to copy him, they can do it better. Maybe they'll even share their personal experience and propagate more experimentation? If enough people do that, maybe collectively we'll one day have the interest and funding to have better studies done.
Would you rather he have not done the build, not shared it with the internet? Maybe he could have been more like the status quo and consumed someone else's product, quietly?
This post and your post yesterday where you argued 2700K screen temperature late in ones day is NOT less straining than 5800K, because if that were true, movie theatres would play all their movies with screens at 2700K... makes me think you're not really interested in people improving their quality of life, you just want to argue.
Enthusiasm is great. Enthusiasm masquerading as medical treatment is not.
How do you think all those legitimate scientific journals got started? It's natural to think that because science is currently done with a huge amount of rigor that it was always done with a huge amount of rigor. In truth, the author's approach is still very scientific.
He considered the research he had available to him, reviewed some of the science regarding different lighting technologies, then tried something and observed that it worked. What about that isn't scientific?
Every scientific pursuit started out as a pseudoscience. Even the most rigorous fields like Physics or Medicine were originally people intuiting about a phenomenon with each other. There's nothing unscientific about what the author did, and to me it raises far more interesting questions than a diatribe about a lack of rigor.
Consider that you could have said the same thing about the anti-vax movement. Sharing autism anecdotes for other people to build upon is not getting you closer to proper assessment of the vaccine safety.
That's why we dislike this stuff so much - it's bad science, and you can't build good science from bad science.
It's a cool engineering project though, nothing wrong with discussing it as such.
The founding history of scientific journals is often amazing, involving legends in the respective fields. Then over decades those journals became "legitimate" by not publishing crap.
> Every scientific pursuit started out as a pseudoscience
I don't think that word means what you think it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience