Re: Some relevant criticism, some not

Sure. Remind me of this the next time I visit New Guinea, please.

Exactly my point. You can claim anything you want as long as there is no feasible way to prove it. By the way, I recently saw a fairy fluttering around in my backyard. But, silly me, I didn't get any pictures. But trust me, it's the truth . . .

Other than that, this was intended to be the kind of criticism that your test would find in the peer review process for publishing. I personally think the idea is fascinating and relevant. I just think it needs polishing if it is to be considered scientifically defensible.

Says the guy who made a sweeping claim that cannot be verified in any practical way by me or anyone else here. People in glass houses . . .

I don't think Seamus and Lyrics will do any better than the rest did, though. They too are going to bump against the limitations of the test, and (not to minimize) their own overconfidence in being able to "pass".

Every test has limitations. That doesn't entirely invalidate their findings. Anyway, as I stated, glil and Seamus made the claim they could tell them apart period. They didn't qualify that boast with "But only in real life" or any other such statement. If they cannot do so except when certain conditions are met, then they have limitations as well, which is ultimately my point anyway.