Once a year, on or about Guy Fawkes Day, I host a gathering. A gathering, for Science!!. Bold experimenters gather, consume irish carbombs mixed with different stouts, creams, and whiskeys, and record their rankings for the mixes.
The result's of this year's Science!!:
Irish Creams, ranked best to worst
Emmet's - Average rating: 6.53
Bailey's - Average rating: 6.29
Carolan's - Average rating: 5.95
Whiskies, ranked best to worst
Feckin' Irish Whiskey - Average rating: 6.55
Jameson - Average rating: 6.37
Bushmill's - Average rating: 5.89
Notes:
The result's of this year's Science!!:
Irish Creams, ranked best to worst
Emmet's - Average rating: 6.53
Bailey's - Average rating: 6.29
Carolan's - Average rating: 5.95
Whiskies, ranked best to worst
Feckin' Irish Whiskey - Average rating: 6.55
Jameson - Average rating: 6.37
Bushmill's - Average rating: 5.89
Notes:
VIEW 12 of 12 COMMENTS
To assert that a double blind study cannot be performed because the material is public domain assumes that scientists lack curiosity about a potentially plausible dietary system and the means to get a grant for a potentially plausible dietary system. That seems incredibly unlikely to me. The existence of the Ig Nobel Prize would seem to invalidate the claim that it's impossible to get a study done when it seems unlikely to create profit. Not to mention the simple existence of the NCCAM.
The difference between this and, say, willow bark is pretty simple. Willow bark, aspirin, is mainstream, demonstrated, and entirely plausible. It doesn't need to be tested because it's not really in question - its efficacy has been demonstrated for decades. But even were that not the case, the suggestion that it's not being tested is patently false. Likewise for valium.
I'm looking around for Ayurvedic studies and... they mostly look pretty crappy. I see an oil-dripping study that concludes a positive result with only 16 participants. I see one study actually examining the effects of the diet on diabetes which seems to suggest that it may have helped, or may not, depending on how one does the math on the results, and further study is needed. And there are a couple other studies loosely related.
To suggest that something must be bunk because it has no double-blind studies is, of course, incorrect. But to withhold acceptance of an assertion until it's been accepted is absolutely rational. That's almost the foundation of reason. Until Ayurvedic methods are demonstrated to be efficacious, I remain skeptical of its claims. And I'm not impressed by excuses that it cannot be tested for this reason or that. If people are willing to test homeopathy, and they have, they're willing to test this.
As previously stated:
wind, rain, hail, tornadoes, huricanes, humidity, and snow can help excalate your bitching needs
Also, for when L.A. drops below the chill of the temperate 70s:
60s: Cool - No, not cold. Mild whining is valid in warmer climates.
Seeing as LA falls under the 'warmer climates' category, mild whining is valid. For example, the temperatures could dip as evening rolls in and you could be heard saying, "For fuck's sake, wasn't it 90 degrees out earlier?" This could be followed up with scattered grumblings, but only within reason.