Alright, folks. Lots of people have been dancing around this question on the various threads. So I ask you... Can research that is not single-blind or double-blind research be called research, in the modern scientific sense? Example: 10 birdwatchers go out and view a nest of small birds in the distance. The most knowledgable birdwatcher calls them redbreasted robins. The other 9 look closely, and remembering that they've seen something like this before, agree that they're robins. Now, do they need to do DNA testing in order to continue field research on the robins? Clearly, double-blind studies have more rigor than single-blind studies. And single-blind studies likewise hold more water than anecdotal studies. But I contend that anecdotal research is still scientific research. (Ask any birdwatcher). Simple observation is the very basis of scientific rationale. (ref. Newton, Einstein, de Vinci etc.) Occasionally, double-blind studies have so many controls that either the hypothesis becomes oversimplified or the conclusion becomes meaningless in reality (ex: field research). This of course does not mean the researcher should not strive for the most rigorous study possible.