Re: Averill's Editorial

[Kent Lambert <lambert@allegheny.edu>]

So, you would not be critical of an analogy that is equally invalid but 
supported an opposing view?  Just because it was an editorial does NOT mean 
that it only contains opinions.  Good editorials contain facts on which the 
editorial opinion is based.  The discussions on this listserver have been 
whether the analogy is appropriate.  

A good analogy is extremely useful as a teaching tool whether it is the 
public, radiation workers, or HP students.  Scientifically and/or technically 
correctness does not necessarily mean boring.  Dr. John Allen Paulos is a 
math teacher at Temple University whose undergraduate classes are standing 
room only.

We need to remember that to get our message out (whatever that message is) we 
must (1) maintain credibility and (2) state our message so that our audience 
listens to it.  Observe any policical race to see this in action.

BTW, half of 212 degrees F is not 106 degrees F but 124 degrees below zero.  
I think that hands in this temperature liquid would indeed suffer deleterious 
effects.
 
Kristin Erickson wrote:
> 
> [Because] Editorial opinions are ... 
> ... opinions, the writers are at liberty to be a bit more "loose" in
> their presentation than those of us who must teach, train, review, present
> or generate scientific information.

> But it is the very detailed technicality, jargon, and the
> required scientific background that all too often intimidates, insults,
> confuses or repells the average person in the public.
> 
> The advantage of this editorial in these uses is that it IS an
> opinion, and is less dry and more understandable to many "non scientific"
> readers than many of the other materials wer use.

-- 
Kent Lambert, CHP
lambert@allegheny.edu

All opinions are well reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not [necessarily] the
opinions of my employer. - paraphrased from Michael Feldman