Sorry, insufficient clarity: i could see you were advising on heading off a potential risk, but i rather think that *if* it transpires that any scientists would only respect Alex's lungs if Alex conducted an ad-hoc one-person experiment using their own body - given there is sufficent peer-reviewed material easily available to suggest that Alex's problem is *plausible* if not yet conclusively documented - then said scientists would be dicks, and their opinion of dubious reliability.
I mean, it might happen. But it would not be scientifically valid, or indicative of reasonable critical thinking on the part of said scientists.
I absolutely take the point about N=1 etc. - my work does not involve experiments! - but the issue I was trying to address isn't about whether this person respects Alex's lungs, so much as about whether he respects their brain. The harsh truth is that it doesn't matter very much whether you, or I, or Alex, think that Alex's group leader is a dick or his opinion of dubious reliability. His opinion of Alex still matters, assuming he retains some useful degree of respect from his peers. If, on being asked informally whether he'd recommend Alex for position X, he gives a less-than-glowing answer, they don't get the job. (Or, more insidiously, the co-authorship, the refereeing gig, the seminar invitation, the... all the stuff that is awarded on the basis of X's opinion of Y, and leads to success.)
And even if the answer to "can you design an experiment which [will convincingly rule out a possibility someone has in mind]" is No, e.g. because the largest N we have available is 1 and you can't do stats on that, it may *still* be worth thinking about, because Alex may wish to get points for an honest attempt to look at the issue that may be in someone's mind face on. E.g. just saying "I think it's an allergy. I can't prove that it's not partly psychological, e.g. exacerbated by the natural anxiety I feel given that my lungs are so troublesome. Regardless, the effect is real and I'd appreciate it if you acted on the assumption that it's entirely physical" would get a much better reaction from some people than the bare assertion that it's physical and no engagement with any other possibility.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
I mean, it might happen. But it would not be scientifically valid, or indicative of reasonable critical thinking on the part of said scientists.
no subject
no subject