The NYer can be obtuse about scientific topics, but this article intrigued me. Is the decline effect real?It's certainly the case that many medical practitioners follow outdated advice. And the use of statistics in medicine (to be sure, a special subset of science) can be awkward. I keep asking people: if I've lowered my chances by twenty percent of contracting a certain cancer by doing thus-and-so, and I find four other thus-and-so's to also do, does that mean I'll never get that cancer? No one can answer.On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:58 AM, [hidden email] wrote:On 12 Dec 2010 at 0:46, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
At least until recently, when the NY-er writes about science, they try veryhard not to write anything stupid.
What??? Have you forgotten the whole disgraceful
Paul Brodeur episode? Refresh your memory by reading
<http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN10/wn121010.html>.
Worse than stupid, verging on criminal, given the
amount of money it's caused to be thrown away and
the amount of anxiety it's generated or caused to
be misplaced.
I haven't yet read the "decline effect" article, and
am not commenting on it, just on your quoted sentence
above.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
"If you're away from Broadway, you're only camping out."
Thomas E. Dewey
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |