On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Trelstad, Derek wrote:
> Stupidity is relative.
Yes, yes, maybe I should not have used the word "stupid".
> There is a lot to be learned by both the stupid (uninformed)
> and the smart (the informed) in a dialogue in which a stupid question is
> thoughtfully answered.
Indeed, I once knew a strangely ignorant fellow whose questions inspired
me to answer with wonderful insights I didn't know I had. I learned a lot
from answering his questions.
> Quiz us. Post a letter with the author's name changed (to protect the
> innocent) and several plausible answers and see if we are any smarter than
> the author.
You tempt me. Unfortunately most of the questions and demands I receive
are not the sort that might inspire great thought.
[Message on hold while browsing the old mail folders.]
Well, here's one that is sort of interesting. I wouldn't characterize
this as a stupid question, though.
Someone wrote to me:
> Basically, I need to know an average time it takes older Americans to die
> What percentage die instantly?
And I responded:
> I'm flattered to be asked, but I don't know where to find that kind of
> statistic.
>
> Part of the problem is definitional: what does it mean "to die"?
> Traditionally, one is either alive or one is dead. Someone whose
> systems are still functioning, regardless how precariously and
> regardless how grim the prognosis, is still alive. So technically,
> perhaps, everyone dies instantly.
>
> On the other hand, obviously the process of dying involves a transition
> from a theoretical state of health through some kind of illness or
> trauma to death. But even this is problematic. Someone who is diabetic
> might live a relatively normal life for many years, and yet the disease
> might kill them; when did they "start dying"?
>
> Good luck with your project. I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
How would you have answered an unsolicited question like this?
---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com/
|
