I come back to the point that you are making assumptions of which we can only guess. This puts respondents not only at a disadvantage but also could lead to constantly feeding you until you are full, to no known benefit of others but to yourself.
So, since this is not a debating society and to avoid such frustrations, feeding dynamics and drains of valuable energy that could be directed toward common aims, I suggest you first address the assumptions that seem to lock you into circular discourse.
If your assumption is that the Cassiopaea Experiment is presented a scientific experiment that follows the conventional norms of scientific method, then, in my limited understanding of said method, I would have to say that you are sorely wrong. Any discussion that continues along such an assumption will only continue to be erroneous, since there is a disconnect between terms of reference for involved parties.
As Patience so eloquently stated earlier, we should not let the inability to measure that which cannot be measured beyond doubt prevent honest attempts to quantify and qualify as much as possible.
You also make the false assumption that some declaration or result of some scientific experiment has been published and invitations for comment have been issued, which you have misguidedly or dellusionally interpreted as an invitation for your opinion. Nothing of the sort has occurred, so it seems bizarre that you would enter this forum to debate that which has not occurred.
However, in the hope of opening your mind to other possibilities, I offer this. if science never made attempts to study the immeasurable, new tools , methods and approaches would rarely evolve beyond seeking efficiencies within the status quo. Such attempts, as rare as they are, are what force us to consider new paradigms and creates sufficient friction within the few minds that exist within established science to invest some of their creative minds into breaking away from old paradigms and seeking to achieve a deeper understanding of areas previously ignored by science. Perhaps the immeasurable could be measured if enough creative, scientific minds had sufficient impetus.
I work in the area of performance measurement of communications (in the sense of PR, marketing, etc.), particularly online communications. Communications is an area traditionally left to measuring outputs rather than outcomes, since measuring outcomes requires either survey techniques applied to samples of targeted audiences that involve the subjectivity of the respondents or direct observation through objective third parties, which is cost prohibitive to observe sufficient sample sizes. So, since either measurement approach carried issues with validity and extraordinary cost, they end up being abandoned.
However, in performance measurement, there's a concept of "good enough" and the notion that some information is better than no information. "Good enough" is a factor where you achieve sufficient information to make inferences within acceptable tolerance levels for validity, which puts us in the realm of probabilities. And having some measurements that can be reproduced to provide consistency over time, gives us baselines and vectors to work with as we refine strategic communications planning.
In my mind, we have to take a similar approach to what has traditionally been considered the immeasurable or unquantifiable. In the absence of such attempts, we end up with narrow thinking that rarely creates new discoveries outside the confines of established or conventional theories. The best that could occur in such an absence allows would be to think outside of the box but within a slightly larger box.
In the case of science versus spiritualism or religion, arrogance and disdain form on both extremes and great energy is invested in proving the other wrong and, depending on who's in power at the time, people on one side or the other run the risk of getting burned at the stake.
However, when shifting paradigms to try to bridge the two, we open ourselves to uncover areas previously ignored and new worlds of discovery and mutual validation may emerge that would otherwise remain known to all involved.
This, I believe, is where the Cassiopaean Experiment comes into play. And yes, I was alluding to the broader use of the term "experiment", but want you to understand that, unlike adolescent experimentation, this experiment was initially, from my understanding, approached with a greater understanding of the issues related to ensuring validity as much as possible.
As such, since this is not an experiment in the sense you are looking for, I am doubtful your initial line of inquiry wrt single hypothesis will be satisfied.
In my mind, this experiment lies on an axis where, at one end is scientific method and the other, fiddling with knobs to see what will happen, and place it significantly closer to the former than the latter.
Laura did state in her writing the how's and why's, including her choices to for mitigation against known, unknown and unexpected influence, as much as possible without making such an experiment impossible. However, it doesn't seem to me that the purpose of the experiment was to prove any single hypothesis, rather to provide new areas for investigation.
I trust you can somehow feel solace that no scientific, controlled experiment and its results are being run here (yet) within the established scientific rigor you hold so dear, and you can now go back asleep, knowing reality as you know it remains intact. All is well in the world.
If, however, you want truly want to understand objective reality and are willing to let go of your comfort of subjective reality, make the investment and read what has been offered to you and see how far the rabbit hole goes. The material is offered for you and anyone else to consider and either take or leave. And if, after an honest review of the material, you find yourself so inclined, continue with this forum to further the research or start your own forum and discuss your opinions.
Gonzo
