ACTSNYC@cs.com on wed 26 apr 00
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:38:49 EDT
> From: Diane Schanz
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
> Subject: Science data vs. anecdotes (was Re: Leaches ENOUGH!!!)
> Resent-Subject: Science data vs. anecdotes (was Re: Leaches
ENOUGH!!!)
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> 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) <
--------------------
It is a complete mystery to me how simply asking if anyone else remembered
this story and how to track it down should be in anyway related to scientific
doublespeak or presentation of anecdotal evidence. I have no idea whether
the story about the twins that I vaguely remember is even true. I just want
to track it down and find out. I'm curious, so shoot me.
Hell, there are other cases of adults and children made seriously, even
deathly, ill from lead pottery, lead from tin can solder, from lead pewter
ware, etc. That's not the issue. I am interested in *this* story. And
even if true, this story has no value as "anecdotal" anything. No proof,
anecdotal or otherwise, is needed to support the fact that there are serious
effects from high levels of lead. That whole question was answered decades
ago. Get over it.
I thank the two kind Clayarters who also remembered reading the story (one
posted, one private) and who gave me some clues as to where to have my
researcher look. 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
| |
|
