> No. You really want to measure. The difference between science and screwing around is measuring this appropriately and having a log.

You seem to misunderstand something.

I'm in favor of the study.

The dingus i was replying to, thought having robots which were observed, would invalidate the study on robots... which pretty universally are already under some kind of observation.

I thought that opinion, was dumb.

> For it to be valid knowledge ot needs to be tested

And how are you going to validate anything when you're literally excluding the possibility of tangible results if an event occurs?