Good debate so far; almost downright civil at that too!; keep it up :)
One thing AK said had a definite head-jurking effect for me, one that boardered between irony and being close to oxymoronic:
"Everything affects how we think we feel..........."
Just from the point of view of how the words are defined, thinking and feeling are separate behavior characteristics although they are by no means mutually exclusive but to the contrary are nearly inseparable and inherhently interwined. Thinking is generally a matter of one's intellectual capacity being applied to a situation, feeling is generally a gauge of how much influence one's emotions are impacting a situation. Many of us may appreciate and be aware of how one's intellectual capacity tends to wane and be overun by one's emotions. As a general rule, these characterisitcs tend to be inversely proportional. In the topsy turvy mixed up way that people have been conditioned over the eons through habits of customary terminolgy and langauge they use to communicate such matters, people may routinely say they were largely doing the former (thinking) when in fact upon closer evaluation it is found that the latter (emotion) was dominant to the extent that their intellect (rational thinking) may be said to effectively have been non-existant. Just between you, me and the lampost, it seems to me that people in general are often not aware of how they are guided by their emotions and how their emotions naturally tend to dominate their intellect. Be this as it may, our customary terminology has evolved to reflect this overall situation and condition of the collective human condition - we have "intellectual thinking" and "emotional thinking". LOL!
It is interesting in the example given that "feeling" also involved the element of gauging one's sensory input "how do you feel?", which no doubt influences how one thinks and feels. Back to the topics at hand, like the merits of double-blind study coupled with the everpresent reality of bias, at least by definition, double-blind study wins hands down as a method for proving and disproving the worth of something that somebody was motivated to study. As a disclaimer to saying what I'm about to say, I respect AK's knowledge, experience and capacity to communicate (as evidenced by my enjoyment and enlightenment from having read many of his past and various posts); I remember in the past he also made comments about his respect for the use of double-blind study methodology. However, there is a pretty large body of evidence out there, so to speak, if one is so inclined to search for, digest, contemplate and appreciate it, that indicates double-blind studies do not always occur in a vaccum IE> without prevailing bias. The bias may not become so prominent in the actual testing, per se. At least by definition, it can not. By strict definition, double-blind implies a reasonable attempt to keep bias out of the equation. But in the practical world of reality that occurs beyond and or outside of strict definitions, bias can and does often make it's effects known with respect to such study, if not in the actual carrying out of the criteria (and motives therein) for the testing, it becomes prominent, often in the form of various familiar and predictably ugly emtions, like greed, lust for authority/power, fear (of a higher, up-the-chain master/puppet-master) etc. in the methods and motives used to impact how the findings of a given study are reported. For instance results undesirable to the biases of those who promoted/funded the study may be minimized, corrupted, twisted or just plain and outright sat-on and buried in favor of desired results. To the average person, we may emotionally think of people doing such studies as having our best interests at heart (emotion :) and or in mind (intellect ;), which leads us to collectively trust whatever results may be publicized for whatever "thing" whatever "person" was motivated to study. In this light, and keeping in mind the authority, power and ubiquitous prevalence of mainstream (medicine, higher-learning/universities/science, and the reporting systems therein - IE> the media, sheparded under the massive umbrella of government oversight), how many among us see alternative methods, such as but not limited to things like Zappers, as having even the faintest snow ball in Hell's chances of ever being legitmately double-blind studied AND legitimately reported to the public? It is my impression that the past 100 years, conservatively speaking, of the livlihoods of mainstream medicine compared to alternative medicine has well documented (although not too well in the public;) that so far, there have not been many if any people with big enough kahunas (male or female) to take on and take a stand against (and survive!) the obvious and gargantuan effort required to pull off such a collective test (literally and figuratively) In honor of a familiar and time-honored trait of emotional thinking, I'm still holding out hope via the wishful thinking therein :)