One of the dictionary definitions of the word ´science´ is given as ´truth ascertained by observation, experiment, and induction.´ A vast amount of time, money, and energy is being spent by society today in the pursuit of science. This pursuit is quite often frustrating because, as any scientist knows, the processes of observation, experiment, and induction do not always lay bare the ´truth.´ One experiment, with one set of observations, may lead two scientists to two different conclusions. For example, a scientist places a rat into a pen with two doors, both closed. One door is painted red and the other blue. The rat is then subjected to 20 minutes of music of the type popular with today?s teenagers. After this experience, both doors are opened and the rat runs out of the pen. The scientist notes which color door the rat chose. This experiment is repeated 10 times, each time using a different rat. At the end of the composite experiment, the experimenter notes that the rats chose the red door 7 out of 10 times and concludes the ´truth´ as being that the treatment used causes rats to prefer the red door to the blue door. However, a colleague overhears this conclusion and jokingly tests the scientist: ´If I tossed a coin 10 times getting 7 heads and, before each toss, I whistled ?Yankee Doodle,? would you conclude that my whistling caused the coin to prefer heads?´ Seeing the analogy between a rat choosing one of two doors and a coin landing on one of its two sides, the scientist realizes the error and decides that the outcome of the experiment could easily have been the result of chance. Later the scientist conducts a second experiment. He injects a certain drug into the bloodstream of each of 10 rats. Five minutes later he examines the rats and finds that 7 are dead, and the other 3 are apparently healthy. However, since only 7 are dead, he recalls the previous experiment and concludes that such a result could easily have occurred by chance and therefore there is no proof that the drug injections are dangerous.