The McShane Firm, LLC - Law Offices

In true science there is a difference between a blind experiment and open experiment. The blind method is a part of the scientific method.

The blind experimental model is used to prevent research outcomes from being influenced by observer bias. Observer bias is also called observer-expectancy effect (also called the experimenter-expectancy effect, observer effect, contextual bias or experimenter effect). Observer bias is a form of reactivity, in which a researcher’s bias causes them to unconsciously influence the participants of an experiment.

It is the most significant threat to a study’s internal validity.

It is therefore typically controlled using a double-blind experimental design.

To blind a person involved in research (whether a researcher, subject, funder, or other person) is to prevent them from knowing certain information about the process. The terms ‘blind’ (adj) or ‘to blind’ (vt) when used in this sense are figurative extensions of the literal idea of blindfolding someone. There can be varying degrees of blinding (eg, single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind), as explained more below.

The opposite of a blind trial is an open trial.

Blinding is a basic tool to prevent conscious as well as subconscious bias in research.

For example, in open taste tests comparing different product brands, consumers usually choose their regular brand. However, in blind taste tests, where the brand identities are concealed, consumers may favor a different brand.

• Single-blind describes experiments where information that could introduce bias or otherwise skew the result is withheld from the participants, but the experimenter will be in full possession of the facts.
• Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters.

Double blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor. In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter’s bias). The random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design.

Perhaps the best place to start at the beginning. Let’s start with some basic definitions of terms.

The must basic place to start is a discussion of the scientific method. Not so obvious to some, but it is a method. It is the best method known to man to logically seek to prove or disprove an idea.

If it is done correctly, it can result in as near to certainty as we can ever come to the truthfulness of a conclusion. The goal of the scientific method is to get results that accurately represent the physical processes taking place in the phenomenon.

To that end, it emphasizes a number of traits to insure that the results it gets are valid to the natural world.

• objective – the scientific method intends to remove personal and cultural biases by focusing on objective testing procedures.
• consistent – the laws of reasoning should be used to make hypotheses that are consistent with broader, currently known scientific laws
• observable – the hypothesis presented should allow for experiments with observable and measurable results.
• pertinent – all steps of the process should be focused on describing and explaining observed phenomena.
• parsimonious – only a limited number of assumptions and hypothetical entities should be proposed in a given theory [as stated in Occam’s Razor].
• falsifiable – the hypothesis should be something which can be proven incorrect by observable data within the experiment, or else the experiment is not useful in supporting the hypothesis. (This aspect was most prominently illuminated by the philosopher of science Karl Popper.)
• reproducible – the test should be able to be reproduced by other observers with trials that extend indefinitely into the future.

With goals above described, the method itself has about 5 basic steps.

1. Ask a question – determine a natural phenomenon (or group of phenomena) that you are curious about and would like to explain or learn more about, then ask a specific question to focus your inquiry.
2. Research the topic – this step involves learning as much about the phenomenon as you can, including by studying the previous studies of others in the area.
3. Formulate a hypothesis – using the knowledge you have gained, formulate a hypothesis about a cause or effect of the phenomenon, or the relationship of the phenomenon to some other phenomenon. This hypothesis must be observable phenomenon. THIS HYPOTHESIS MUST NOT BE THE IMPACT OF THE RESEARCH, BUT RATHER THE PHENOMENON ITSELF.
4. Test the hypothesis – plan and carry out a procedure for testing the hypothesis (an experiment) by gathering data.
5. Analyze the data – use proper mathematical analysis to see if the results of the experiment support or refute the hypothesis. Come to a conclusion.

Everyone has a blog it seems. Why add a new to the ever increasingly cluttered landscape of the internet. In other words: “Why will this blog matter to you?”

The reason I started this blog was simple. Spreading the good word of good forensic science and spreading the word of “bad” forensic science. What I mean by “bad” forensic science is really the use of traditional methods that have not been sufficiently studied and verified in such a way that any reasonable credentialed and well-educated scientist would come to the conclusion that some “experts” espouse.
With this blog, we will have guest writers from time-to-time from the scientific and legal field.

Finally, and most importantly, this blog will separate in a clearly delineated manner empirical peer-reviewed facts and theories for editorials and opinions. All matters that are presented as empirical peer-reviewed facts or theories will be clearly sourced so that it can be checked. Editorials or opinions will be highlighted in such a way so as to not confuse the two.

So let us begin…