Nah, I don't think he looks at a situation to prove it wrong; I think he looks at a claim, looks at the scientific evidence surrounding the claim, and then makes a decision on what he believes based on the evidence.
"I wouldn't put it past a person like him to shrug off evedance the rest of us would not"
If the studies had shown a link between a Full Moon and various things like emergency room admissions and whatever, then I'm sure the page would read differently. If there are 95 studies that show no correlation whatsoever, and 5 studies that show a slight correlation, what's more likely? It's not so much picking and choosing which studies he believes, it's looking at the evidence as a group and making a logical decision - five studies that show a correlation against 95 studies that don't doesn't mean much.
That's kind of why I posted on this topic. One friend - who's prone to being biased - that claims that there's more activity on a Full Moon night VS. many studies that show there is no greater activity on a Full Moon night? Who's right? Who are you more inclined to believe? Your friend or the mass amount of scientific studies done?
Just some food for thought! I don't mean to aggravate anyone, but I thought I'd throw in an objective viewpoint in the mix.
