Diane Schanz on tue 25 apr 00
Clayarters:
There seems to be a very basic point that is being misunderstood here. I
think it needs to be made clear.
The language that is used to discuss, convey and enlighten is up to the
speaker. It is NOT dependent on the topic. One can speak on anything from
gardening to astrophysics using terms that no layperson could understand, or
in everyday terms. Scientists use terms that they are familiar and
comfortable with. If you have no science background it can be difficult to
understand.
If the listener cannot understand the speaker, or the terms used, it is
up to the listener to convey that to the speaker. I think there is equal
frustration on the part of scientists when they are trying to answer a
question that has been asked and the questioner closes down. "Oh, okay. I
understand. No, I don't need any more explanation." It is impossible
(without being incredibly rude) to continue to try to explain. If the
questioner refuses to specify what they aren't following, it ends there.
Scientific inquiry and fact are completely different from anecdotal
"evidence" - stories that someone heard from a friend; no documentation, no
witnesses, and often no specific participants! In short, there is no way to
check any information about such stories, including whether they actually
occurred. There are times when an overwhelming number of similar anecdotal
cases can lead to scientific inquiry. I think that is a good thing.
Sometimes it is the result of coincidence.
What Mary's frustration is aimed at (as a former scientist I am being
bold enough to assume) is the increasing use of baseless (i.e., without
factual conformation) stories being touted as scientific research and
therefore fact. There is a world of difference between research and what we
call "fact." Original studies that are printed in the paper as fact have
scientists grinding their teeth also.
One of my pet peeve's is that a basic understanding of research and poll
taking is not taught in schools. When you read a study that concludes that pe
ople with hair color X live shorter lives, you also need to know how many
people were in the poll, to whom they were compared, what other factors that
affect longevity were looked at or ignored. Comparing your uncle with hair
color X, who died young in a war with his twin sister of hair color B who is
still alive really doesn't tell you much, does it? You took a poll of 2 and
only looked at age at time of death.
Again, what Mary's post was referring to is NOT the difference between
discussing something in scientific terms and discussing it in terms that
laypersons can understand.
This is not meant to cover this topic completely, that would be a very
long post.
Okay, here are the disclaimers:
1. This is not an attack on Monona or anyone else. Whether I agree with
what is said or not, I appreciate the contributions to Clayart.
2. This is not an attack on believers' of anecdotal evidence. Simply an
attempt to explain why it is not accepted as scientific evidence.
3. Obviously, I do not speak for all scientists. I'm sure some of them
hate my example (!).
Off to glaze. Diane in Tucson (where it may hit 100 soon)
Kris Baum on thu 27 apr 00
As a former scientist, I heartily agree with Diane. One example
happened a number of years ago when there was a huge amount of press
regarding a study purporting to show that getting mammograms leads to
an increased risk of breast cancer. However, women getting
mammograms are ALREADY at increased risk of getting breast cancer
(e.g. family history, age, etc.), which is why they are getting
mammograms in the first place! The researchers did not control for
this variable in their populations (i.e., they compared outcomes
between two groups of women who were significantly different), making
the results of the study completely invalid.
Diane wrote:
> One of my pet peeve's is that a basic understanding of research
>and poll taking is not taught in schools. When you read a study
>that concludes that people with hair color X live shorter lives, you
>also need to know how many people were in the poll, to whom they
>were compared, what other factors that affect longevity were looked
>at or ignored. Comparing your uncle with hair color X, who died
>young in a war with his twin sister of hair color B who is still
>alive really doesn't tell you much, does it?
>You took a poll of 2 and only looked at age at time of death.
Kris Baum
Shubunkin Pottery
Gaithersburg, MD
USA
mailto:shubunkin@earthlink.net
Diane G. Echlin on thu 27 apr 00
Monona,
I attempted to post a reply to the original nasty note, but apparently I was too
strident in my recriminations. Essentially, my point is that this is a place fo
an exchange of ideas and issues, not personal attacks, and i felt the original
letter should not have been posted to the list at all because of the personal
nature of it's venom. All that aside, I hope you will reconsider your decision
not to ask for help in this forum. Please don't let one angry person spoil this
wonderful resource for you.
Di
> But those two short suggestions do not balance the pages
> and pages of off-the-mark, downright weird, nastiness that were also
> generated. I will never ask this forum for help again.
>
> Monona Rossol
> ACTS
> 181 Thompson St., # 23
> NYC NY 10012-2586 212/777-0062
>
> ACTSNYC@cs.com
| |
|
