Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbncc5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Tea
Message-ID: <354@bbncc5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 09:29:33 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncc5.354
Posted: Tue Dec 10 09:29:33 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 06:01:22 EST
References: <3441@brl-tgr.ARPA> <715@lasspvax.UUCP> <144@bbncc5.UUCP> <2359@amdahl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 59

> > Sigh, references, please.  Whatever the risk, it must be very small,
> > for I have never seen any such a claim in the admittedly conventional
> > literature that I habitually read.  I am open to being convinced otherwise.
> > Convince me, please.
> 
> Sigh, another condecending request for references.  The purpose seems
> to always be the same.  To equate a lack of references with a lack
> of truth.  While references are fine for academic works, and
> would even be nice for the net, they are not the be-all and end-all
> of information.  I, too, remember reading *somewhere* of *some*
> study which showed a correlation of tannins with esophageal cancer.
> Milk was found to inhibit it.  My references?  My own memory of
> an article in *some* magazine.  If you want references, go look
> them up in the library.  The net is not a library nor is it
> an acdemic convention where finished papers are being presented.
> It is more like a cocktail party.  What would you think of the
> average person who kept berating people for not having references
> at an *informal* party?
> 
> [blather...]

Sorry, but this is a moronic comment by any standard.  FYI, this isn't
net.politics, it's net.med, and to do my own harping once again, medicine
is ultimately based on the application of the scientific method, and therefore
it is only reasonable to ask for extraordinary claims to be backed up by
some semblance of factual research.  Have you ever noticed that the people
who complain about such an approach are the ones who take an intellectually
lazy approach toward evidence, and are usually the ones saying completely
outrageous things?  When I hear something being passed off as fact which isn't
consistent with my own knowledge, I ask for references so I can better judge
its reliability.  But far from being an insult or attack, as E. Michael would
prefer to see it, it's actually a gesture of respect, since it means that I
am interested enough in the claim that I would bother with it at all.  I am
happy to give references if someone asks me, and I am also happy to hear the
reply "I, too, remember reading *somewhere* of *some* study...", since that
puts the comment in its proper place.

To get back to particulars, there is nothing wrong with saying "I read
somewhere that..."  No one is his right mind would reply with "references
please", since it's clear that this is anecdotal evidence.  No one is
saying anything about truth/falsehood, mind you, although you have to keep
reminding the E. Michael's of this world of this fact again and again.
But the original poster about tea, tannins and esophageal cancer made a very
clear, unambiguous statement as if it was established fact.  Here is the
original:

> > > There is a
> > > clear correlation between drinking bush tea and cancer of the
> > > esophagus.  It's probably the tannins.  

Given that this "fact" isn't widely held, are we suddenly being "condescending"
in asking for references?  What's the point of this group, anyway, a rumor
mill?  I like to think that we always TRY to approach truth here, and we won't
get anywhere near that goal if a statement like the one above isn't checked
for reliability.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA