This only makes it all the more puzzling, then, that you would not understand that science itself, as a concept and proper execution..is based on observation..and that the most foolish thing a man can do, is to dismiss the observation.
That's because I know rather well just how very, very confused human perception can be, in other words, my dismissal of things like non-blind testing is based on OBSERVATIONS of how humans perform in such settings.
Don't confuse the issue here, and don't confuse an objective OBSERVATION with a PERCEPTION.
That is, unless you wish to argue for solipsism, and I don't think you intended that.
Let us consider that there is a good chance that you are arguing with your experience of your own and your judgement of your own personal capacities for discernment under such situations.
Dismissal of bias can be difficult when the very basis of thought emerges from the unconscious, which is not ruled by logic. Thus the basic emotional coloration of the very idea of logic as expression -as experienced within the idea of thought that is emergent from the depths of the mind.
Or perhaps it is simple misunderstanding of the intent. Although the above always applies-within each human breath taken.
When I say do not dismiss the observation I speak on the idea of science itself being predicated on the point of human observation as an initial starting point.
To invalidate the original observation through the blind application of potentials in human observation (ie, predicated upon the negative:people can fool themselves within the scope of their observations) is to dismiss via desire for simplicity, or to narrow things down to lowest common denominators so it can all funnel through a single predetermined testing regimen -- such a thing is dangerous to the utilization of the human condition. The problem is that the human condition is endemic to the situation(s) involved.
We don't know the limits of human perception.
All we really know is that the logic of a human has created a narrow set of test conditionals that relate specifically to the test regimen and very little else.
When answers do not present themselves via scientific methodology as applied to the creation and utilization of a regimen or set of protocols...then the testing regimen or conditionals/parameters/basis/whatever -are at fault.
Not the original observer.
In essence, solipsism is a fundamental point that science has tried desperately to erase..but it cannot..as all observation and science tells the same sad tale of it's permanence in the basis of existence.
Basically, sadly..in the end...Descartes was/is an embarrassment to logic and premise.
Note the massive unspoken gulf between the two above sentences.
Read 'The Field' by Lynne McTaggart (massively documented). I'm not sure how you'll take such a book, but I'm well certain it is important book of note, that should be tied to first year university studies that involve any directional (as a final point of a given schooling ending in scientific vocation) or attempt to define the ideals of logic and application in the human sphere. It quite handily illustrates via even the most rigorous dogmatic conditionals of science -that reality is not even remotely what you think it is.
I can say, in my experience, that if a given person cannot stomach or handle the contents of that particular work with without being able to reflect and or expand upon what the contents reveal to them..then I'm not sure that they are even remotely useful in their existence for the furthering of man in any useful or correct manner.
I must warn you, though.. that the book has the ability to completely crash the mind of the linear thinking and unprepared, if their world view is strictly Newtonian and 'reality' based. This is, of course, ~IF~ they attempt to disprove the contents of the book. The only way such a person can get past the book, if it is actually read by the individual--- is to lie to oneself on the deepest level possible. I shit you not.