The video doesn't show anything about the actual setup, variables, controls, test methods or error modes. It is edited in such a way to show only the effect they wanted to show and there is no data given. It doesn't give us the actual truth yet at the end they say they decided to re-run the experiment again to control for humidity and temperature, yet there is no results from that experiment. I expect that the repeat of the experiment didn't go as they wanted so it was memoryholed. Finally, the video was produced in part with the Environmental Health Trust so there's no way this was impartial, objective science. It started off as modern "science" with an end result they wanted and they built the experiment around that predetermined conclusion. It's about as accurate as climate change model predictions.
"The video doesn't show anything about the actual setup, variables, controls, test methods or error modes."
The video showed all of that. You always pop up when there's a topic on Wi-Fi....why is that? What is your job?
The video "showed" stuff, but there isn't any detail to it that would allow someone else to reproduce the experiment under the same conditions. They published what they wanted to show and left out what they didn't. If it is all true, then there should be lots of experiments that are more detailed in their process and producing the same exact results. Can you find those? I can't.
Maybe cause you just look on your favorite site, Youtube.
The video showed them make it. If you can't remake that there might be something wrong with you.
It showed the most of those things, idk where you're getting that from it sounds like you're just trying to use scientific vocabulary to strengthen your weak argument since you don't go into detail.
They were transparent about temperature and humidity needing to be measured and that those could have caused the results rather than wifi. Complaining that you don't know what happened for the followup is changing the subject.
Yes they showed those things, but that's not enough to guarantee any scientific rigor. Do you know anything about the Scientific Method and how to setup a controlled experiment? It sounds like you want to simply accept their conclusions without knowing the actual details of the experiment, the data and the methods used.
And yes, they were transparent about the temperature and humidity being additional variables that they did not control for, but they still published the video without re-running the experiment with those variables being controlled. They published the video that showed what they wanted to show rather than what may have actually happened. That is scientific fraud.
Can you just chill with the "Ever hear of the scientific method" nonsense? It sounds like you don't like the results of what they tried and you're trying to critique a short and interesting video as if you're peer reviewing an academic paper. Maybe the details are published and you should dig that up if you want to critique at this level of detail.
Yes, the video is short and doesn't prove a flawless execution but it doesn't show any huge red flags either, and they're not pushing a conclusion, just surprising results. If you want to prove one way or another if it was the wifi signal that affected the plants then run the same experiment yourself instead of spouting off pretension that you're an expert like a middle schooler would.
(post is archived)