zlacker

Author anonymously makes unsupported claims, disparages competing products, provides no science, and wrote the post for profit. Nothing can be built on this, because his work is built on sand. "Type up a blog post" is not the important part of the scientific method. Pointing out pseudoscience and invalid methods and data may be the most constructive criticism of all.

Enthusiasm is great. Enthusiasm masquerading as medical treatment is not.

>>tacos+(OP)
> "Type up a blog post" is not the important part of the scientific method.

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.

>>jschwa+E1
> How do you think all those legitimate scientific journals got started?

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