Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!aecom!poppers
From: poppers@aecom.UUCP (Michael Poppers)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: "Controlled experiment": redundancy or retronym?
Message-ID: <1521@aecom.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 12:47:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: aecom.1521
Posted: Mon May  6 12:47:01 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 21:44:30 EDT
References: <477@utai.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 27

From Graeme Hirst (...!utai!gh) comes this question:
> In the last week, I have seen two separate scientific articles use the
> expression "controlled experiment".  ("In one of the few controlled
> experiments using voice input, . . ."  -- Leggett and Williams, IntJMMS,
> 21(6), p.497)
> 
>    Is this simply an egregious redundancy, similar to the popular "past
> history", or is it a true retronym; that is, has the word "experiment"
> become so loose, even in scientific writing, that "uncontrolled experiment"
> is now a meaningful concept?

	It's been a little while since I took a statistics course, but I
seem to recall that statistical studies could be done by using or not 
using control groups.  So, while I hate to spoil the fun (and I *have*
enjoyed all these retronyms), and while the use of "experiment" was a little
dangerous with everyone on guard for syntactical ambiguities that could get
them into W. Safire's column, no go, Graeme!  (Hello? Is this the Squad
Squad?)

	BTW, anyone want to give a history on "no go", which seems to be
orphaned in this world of the Space Age?


	[][][][][][][][][]
	% PERITUS CLAVIS %                     Michael Poppers
	% MACHINAE VIVIT %      {philabs,cucard,pegasus,rocky2}!aecom!poppers
	[][][][][][][][][]      143 Bennett Ave-Apt 3P    New York, NY  10040