One of the virtues of science is the process of critical peer review. Peer reviewers offer critiques of original articles, and accept and reject them based on their scientific worth. Papers that are published can also be criticized by other scientists as well as non-scientists in the editorial correspondence section of any journal. But more importantly, other scientists can try to reproduce the published findings. If the findings cannot be reproduced, they lose their credibility. It is this normal process that leads to technological progress and intellectual advancement, and at periodic intervals, monumental intellectual upheavals.
Anybody who tries to deny that major intellectual upheavals have taken place because of science during our lifetime, and is using a computer and the internet to communicate his denial, is quite obviously denying reality. Regarding the fact that some scientists and non-scientists use hype, rhetoric and catchy words and titles, or make mistakes in their writings, only indicates their human nature. Even their critics do the same. For example, as mentioned in Gilbert's post below, he has used the catchy title "Evidence-based Medicine or Fuzzy Math" for a short letter to the editor published in the editorial correspondence section of a journal. He has also hyped it as a short paper. Actually, it is a letter, apparently criticizing a long peer-reviewed review article written by some physicians and/or scientists. Gilbert's letter begins as follows: "To the Editor: We read the role of evidence-based medicine in radiation therapy with interest [1]. All are in favor of evidence-based medicine. All are against fuzzy-math. That's easy! But, when we analyze the data, do we really know the difference? And do authors who report the results make the effort to outline the distinction? " Now, if the above comment was submitted for peer review then a reviewer might have criticized it as follows: The authors of the editorial correspondence entitled "Evidence-based Medicine or Fuzzy Math" make very careless and inappropriate use of the term "Fuzzy Math". They appear to be unaware that Fuzzy Mathematics is a well-recognized area of Mathematics pioneered by the mathematician Lofti Zadeh, Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Berkeley with the publication of his seminal paper "Fuzzy Sets" in 1965. The authors Lawrence and Crawford should refer to the following introductory book in this area: Fuzzy Mathematics: An Introduction for Engineers and Scientists by John N. Mordeson and Premchand S. Nair The rest of the brief commentary of Lawrence and Crawford merely confirms the conclusions of the original review article, and expands on some details within the original discussion, as indicated by the author of the original article, Seymour H. Levitt, in his response to their comment. Furthermore, the points raised by Lawrence and Crawford are well known caveats and limitations in the interpretation of clinical data, found in most textbooks of Biostatistics. Finally, disregarding the sloppy use of the term "fuzzy-math", their following concluding recommendations are important, but once again hardly original. "Hence leaders in academic medicine should define what is statistically relevant and what is clinically important [1]." And clinicians should regain control on reporting clinical trials to reduce the fuzzy-math in medical literature." Cheers, Santosh --- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Fred, > I noted your post with a smile. Most Goanetters do > not think their supurlo Goenkar is a scientist. > Twenty five years ago, I had all the relevant papers > and their authors' names on my finger tips. But I > have also since seen their data and conclusions come > and go. So now I read the paper and review their > data with a pinch of salt. > > Authors that hype their findings / conclusions > suggest that the data per se is not impressive. The > sad part, the hype dissuades authors and others > researchers from looking at other explanations, > avenues for experimentation or treatment, newer > drugs etc. A decade later, we come to the > conclusion that, perhaps what was originally thought > as an "upheaval" was not the breakthrough that was > touted or that we were hoping. > > Those truly interested in science can look up my > short paper published in a peer-reviewed journal > entitled "Evidence-based Medicine or Fuzzy Math". > Budding scientists on Goanet should not over-look > the false-positive and false-negative in subjective > as well as objective findings in research. Another > short paper of mine is under consideration, which > recommends lowering the p-value for statistical > significance. > > Kind Regards, GL
