I'm not sure if I should admit this here but my training was in Psychology. Every one of my 'buds' in Psych did know what Dbl Blind is and why it is important.
Experimentation in Psych is much more rigorous than you may think. Psychological experimentation is constrained by its "subjects" you know.
My B.A. was in psychology. I could be sensitive about people ragging on psychology, but I'm not. Everyone in my college was required to take grad record exams. The department was built around its counselling program, and nearly everyone failed the GREs miserably.
Experimental Psychology is a young science, but it can be legitimate. It's just rare.
Everyone I've met in psychology has a horribly bad idea of what a control should be. They tend to choose controls that are guaranteed to show whatever they want to prove.
For example, on a test here was the question:
"If someone were to try to come up with a relaxation technique to try to HELP IMPROVE the ability of people to fall asleep, and they had everyone in class attempt the technique at their desks, what should the control be?"
My answer: "have a group of students who simply were to try to go to sleep by whatever method they deemed appropriate at their desks"
What was the official answer? "The control group was supposed to just SIT at their desks."
So, if this experiment was performed like the book wanted, you could have proved that people trying to go to sleep were more successful at falling asleep than people who were sitting down minding their own business. Great. That's real useful information. This sort of idea is probably the source of most of the crap theories in psychology. "Let's make the control group jump off of buildings!" "Oooh, great idea -- that would make an excellent control to whether or not our counseling methods increase lifespan!"