"science"

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Katharine Thayer wrote:

> Judy wrote:
>
> > Of course "science" also leaves holes -- I picked up a New York mag in the 
> > gym for an article about why New Yorkers live longer than anybody else... 
> > In sum, because we walk fast, it says... The author cites a study where 
[senior citizens were told to walk x meters as fast as they could and the 
slowest ones had the highest mortality rate over the next decade or two].

Katharine wrote... "I can't let this statement go unchallenged...  The 
above isn't science, it's an egregious confusion of correlation with 
causality, which scientists are warned against from their earliest methods 
courses." ...etc. etc. etc.

> Judy replies ---
Who's arguing? To say my little anecdote confuses "correlation with 
causality" is to say I've made the mistake of the author. Though one who 
reads my words without an axe to grind might not think so.  In any event, 
"confusing correlation with causality" is hardly my literary style.

If I had to give that nonsense a name, however, it might be a kind of 
magical thinking -- turning a single directed event ("walk as fast as you 
can") into a permanent ongoing condition (and it was indeed a surprise to 
find it taken seriously, even in New York Magazine).

Still, Katharine aparently feels compelled to "challenge" my ironic use of 
the term "science." My intent was to share a delicious bit of nonsense 
without going on until midnight with multisyllabic distinctions. And 
having called it "science" in quotation marks, I neglected to add that in 
common English usage putting a word or phrase in quotation marks is a way 
of expressing disbelief or irony. That was, I thought, obvious.

But then I forgot that Katharine was on the job, finding me guilty, I 
gather, of indicting all "science" (without quotation marks).

Of course plenty of actual science is, or will one day, be indicted, and 
some of our favorite shibboleths will bite the dust (often, alas, when we 
need them most).  Still, I myself prefer to be indicted (or challenged) 
for errors I've made, not for misinterpretations -- deliberate or 
otherwise.

J.