Ffoniwch fi amheus…

Deuthum ar draws y ddyfais ddiddorol hon a chafodd adwaith perfedd ar unwaith.. “Wrth gwrs, nid bwlb dŵr dwp yn gwrthyrru pryfed, mae hyn yn sgam!”…

anadl ddofn…

OK hynny yw amheuaeth ofnadwy. A dweud y gwir, mae'n sinigaidd ac mae'n union beth amheuwyr casáu cael eu galw. Mae hefyd yn rhywbeth sy'n digwydd yn llawer rhy hawdd – Rwy'n eithaf argyhoeddedig nad yw ysbrydion yn bodoli, ni chafwyd unrhyw dystiolaeth gymhellol, byth. Ond bob tro dwi'n clywed stori o helbul mae'n llawer rhy demtasiwn i feddwl am ychydig o esboniadau credadwy a diystyru'r achos heb edrych yn agosach.. A phan fyddwn ni'n gwneud hyn rydyn ni'n rhoi porthiant i'r ymchwilydd credadwy a fydd yn ei daflu yn ôl i'n hwynebau'n gyflymach na pheth gwirodydd yn sipio ar draws ystafell.. Mae bron yn amhosibl darganfod ysbryd go iawn am y tro cyntaf erioed; eto nid yr ateb yw'r ddamcaniaeth amlycaf bob amser a gallwch chi faglu ar sebra bob tro. Y pwynt yw mai ymchwilio yw'r unig ffordd wirioneddol i aros yn amheus.

So in order to avoid arm-chair skepticism I will attempt to purchase and test this device. I have contacted the artist and request more information and a price (“artist” makes me worry). Barring sticker shock (of course someone could donate for the cause) – I will submit this to a decently rigorous test as soon as I gather enough flies.

Y a priori assumption is that the scattering of light created by the water sphere will scare away flies because they have very “sensitive eyes” and the movement of the light will keep them from landing (movement=danger). Not a crazy thought, at the very least this device does not claim to emit any “energy” neu “waves” or any other “b.s. stupidity”. When first approaching claims like this it is very important to ignore anecdotal evidence. In this case, that claim is that this is the “traditional way to scare flies away in most of the food markets on urban Mexico” (spelling error not my own). An argument from popularity and tradition ads zero evidence to efficacy of the device. I suppose widespread use is most likely gullibility spread on the back of a meme.

It is also critical to consider the prior plausibility of light being an effective deterrent. Flies have evolved in an environment that abounds with distractions and dangers – not to mention water. The eyes of a fly (I will assume Musca domestica for purposes of this experiment) are highly sensitive to movement and the reaction time of a housefly is famous. I will go ahead and assume that flies encounter scattered light as part of daily life. Wouldn’t being under a bush on a breezy day – especially if that bush was wet – generate roughly the same effect? It seems unlikely that a common occurrence in nature would induce an escape response the same way a dangerous object would. I conclude the plausibility of this device is low, however not totally amhosibl. Certain light effects may just mimic enough physical movement to scare off a fly. However is that light delivered by hyn object. For example, maybe a flashlight or laser is effective but not scattered light, in that case this device would just be a scam (if not just an object of art). On top of the light assumption, the user also assumes that the light is scattered not only evenly across a surface but densely enough to actually scare enough flies to make this effective for keeping your food fly-free.

Considering the above: I predict that the scattered light created from this bulb will not reduce the number of landings or the duration a fly spends on a surface (especially one with a food lure).

Now to design the experiment…

UPDATE: The artist returned my message and the device is 120 euro + shipping from europe. Too much for me…