From wikipedia comes this definition of the double blind method:
"The double blind method is an important part of the scientific method, used to prevent research outcomes from being 'influenced' by either the placebo effect or the observer bias."
I've spent most of my life analyzing and attempting to understand what makes people tick, including myself. I've read studies, done research, made observations, sought out "experts" and here I am with more questions than answers. There seem to be so many factors that go into the human experience, into why people behave as they do, make the choices they make, see things as they see them. All of which seem very difficult to double blind. I find it increasingly difficult to believe that the double blind process is all that effective. While it may currently be the best tool we have for studying mankind, I think we give it far too much credit.
As I wrote yesterday, there has been discovered a link between the strep bacteria and childhood OCD. Now, we can only account for that possibility because we know that strep exists. It's been discovered and so scientists can add it in as a variable when they're testing for possible OCD drug treatments.
My question is, how many variables do we still not even know about? How can scientists account for variables that the human mind has not even yet discovered or even conceived of? Right now, there could be a microscopic parasite that can cross the blood-brain barrier and it's slowly eating away at all of our brains. How would you account for that if you were doing a drug study? How can you account for something you're not even aware of? Does the observer not automatically become biased by virtue of what he doesn't yet know?
And how can the observer ever truly know that which he knows? Isn't it just a big loop? Sigh. This loop is slowly becoming a noose.