There are big differences between “a study” and “a good study” and “a published study” and “a study that’s been independently confirmed” and “a study that’s been independently confirmed a dozen times over.” These differences are important; when a scientist says something, it’s not the same as the Pope saying it. It’s only when dozens and hundreds of scientists start saying the same thing that we should start telling people to guzzle red wine out of a fire hose.
Mostly agreed. If I were to stand on a soapbox and say “light with a wavelength of 523.4371 nm is visible
to the human eye”, it would fall into the category of an unsubstantiated claim by a single person. But it is
implied by the general knowledge that the human visual range is from roughly 400 nm to roughly 700 nm,
and that has been confirmed by anyone who has looked at a spectrum with even crude wavelength
calibration.
Chris Bucholz
Mostly agreed. If I were to stand on a soapbox and say “light with a wavelength of 523.4371 nm is visible to the human eye”, it would fall into the category of an unsubstantiated claim by a single person. But it is implied by the general knowledge that the human visual range is from roughly 400 nm to roughly 700 nm, and that has been confirmed by anyone who has looked at a spectrum with even crude wavelength calibration.
Shouldn’t that say that it is the same?