Was the testing done by an independent facility?
How rigorous was the testing?
I think, perhaps, we may mean different things when we say testing, Alex.
The structure of the tests described by MelaOS are more on the mark where I am concerned. I'd like to see it occur in a more scientific manner.
That is, testing that could be presented and respected in a scientific journal, following a given set of established testing methods.
Certainly, the testing would involve willing, expert photoreaders, among others.
As for anecdotes: I like them. However, there is room for fuzziness and inaccuracy with anecdotal evidence. There is often a lack of precision. Testing can provide very specific, sound information.
LSC should encourage dialogue with people who do these tests.
If the people who did this test did not open a dialogue with LSC, then shame on them. It shows that the people doing these tests were not so interested in moving forward with information and probably were interested in trying to debunk photoreading.
This is why I'd like to see some really high quality testing done with Photoreading. I think it would help provide some very helpful information and move things forward.
[This message has been edited by babayada (edited November 14, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by babayada (edited November 14, 2004).]
