<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
At 02:37 PM 5/30/00 -0500, natalie shaw wrote:
>I for one feel that what one doctor says, no matter how good the doctor, is
>not medical evidence.
>
>Such posts can be alarming or distressing. Please cite references, or state
>that it's your opinion only.
I would like to say that after spending 43 years teaching in a university
and publishing more than my share of scholarly, referenced and documented
books and articles, I consistently run into people, both students and
faculty, who have a bias or prejudice against one kind of thinking or
another. Some, in sympathy with postmodernism, are prejudiced against logic
and reason, while others are prejudiced against intuition etc. I would
argue that logic, reason, instinct, intuition, writing with footnote and
references and writing without them are all legitimate "tools" for thinking
and expression. But just as an excellent tool like a screw-driver may be
used inappropriately in place of a hammer, thinking and writing tools may
be used inappropriately also.
Demanding the use of citations and references for each statement is
certainly appropriate for a piece that is submitted to a scholarly or
refereed journal. But this is a "discussion" group, and as such should have
room for all kinds of "discussion," especially what is called "collegial
sharing." Solid references are certainly appropriate on this list for some
uses. If they are used to back a statement of fact or to persuade in
argument, they are strong tools. But it is not appropriate to demand these
tools in every discussion that may wonder "what if" or "does this make
sense." I would certainly hate to see this group become a (virtual) place
where no one but academics and scholars felt free to post their questions
or ideas because they were afraid of the pious reactions of some of the
critical readers.
It should also be remembered that some citations and references from books,
when it comes to celiac, would not be as convincing as the unsupported
opinion of a handful of the people on this list who have spent years
studying and researching things that pertain to celiac -- I do not include
myself in this handful you will be pleased to hear :) But if I hear from
some such as Scott Adams or Don Wiss, I listen carefully.
But also, sometimes in a "discussion list" such as this, the musings or
wonderings or "what ifs" or "does this make sense" are appropriate also.
When I read such posts, unsupported by citations or references, I grant
them the appropriate amount of credibility, usually dictated by how much
sense the post makes to me either logically or intuitively. Critical
reading is as important a tool as scholarly writing.
About the doctor statement: I don't mind hearing what someone's doc told
them, but I don't have to believe it either. I know that doctors have the
same problems with incompetency that those in other professions, like
professors, mechanics, and journalists have. But some of them are also
quite competent and knowledgeable. It would help if they stated what kind
of doc when they say this: Internist, gastroenterologist, GP, chiropractor,
or holistic healer?
One of those who answered Natalie's post wrote this:
"** my response to this: just because it's on the net, doesn't mean it's
correct - I am a journalist, and want to find the correct source of
information so I can verify its value. This is why I posted in the first
place. so sorry to this person, but your father and son simply aren't good
enough evidence for me."
My reaction would be that there are plenty of books and journals out there
with just as questionable statements as can be found on the Internet. No
statement should be automatically accepted or rejected just because it came
from the Internet or from a book. The principal weakness of references for
the Internet, especially for published ideas, is that the references are
usually only temporary. If you check for that reference a few months later
it may not be there.
I wonder if journalists would be happier with references such as "reported
by an unnamed source" or "a reliable source told me" than with a reference
from the Internet :)
And finally to the two who were put off by the Irish joke, I'm Irish too
and can joke about it if I wish. Lighten up. Smile a little :) But "Erin
gobrach" anyway :)
-vance
|
