Also without any study done or shown, Dr. Schlobotnik has used an overly complex sentence, "to produce unique electrical field that activates neurons in the cerebellum, which in turn stimulates neurons," using an attempt to look scientific and intelligent, instead of showing us evidence that proves the claim. These terms and phrases are alleged to make it look scientific and reasonable in order to gain more fame for the object. In reality, it is both doubtful and questionable because there is no connection to proper scientific methodology and cannot be convincingly proven. Also, when we look at the "Frequently Asked Questions about the Miracle Memory Device," it has shown multiple excuses because of their failure. Being in the wrong place on the globe has nothing to do with the device's failure. If it works at one place then it should work everywhere. If there is no study done and no scientific proofs of the device, then how can any reasons for its failure be determined? These thoughts, understandings, and support from both the text and the article helps to prove that the miracle memory device is a pseudoscience and not real science. Last but not the least is to check the source of the claim. Where it was published might not be convincing; no citation might be given to a reliable journal. .
2. If Dr. Schlobotnik wanted to show that his device was based on science, what evidence would he have to provide?.
Dr. Schlobotnik has to follow what science follows and genuine scientific literature to be neither ignored nor misinterpreted in order to convince people that the memory device is based on science. He has to carry out careful, systematic, and methodical experiments and do a follow up on those experiments as well. Instead of beginning with a solid conclusion, first, he has to make reasonable observations. The observation should be carried out under controlled conditions in order to minimize the impact of preferences as well as random influences from the environment.
