6/03/2008

Pediatrics attack: This passes for academic discussions in medicine?


Simply saying that "We respectfully disagree with Dr. Lott's comments and stand by our editorial" is irksome. As one friend wrote me: "Their response is puzzling--they just ignore everything you say and say they stand by their original conclusions--bizarre."

UPDATE: SayUncle puts this in perspective here.
Robert VerBruggen mentions the exchange here at NRO's phi beta cons.

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

Blogger Hartley said...

Considering the comprehensive, organized and extensively footnoted nature of the response, it would, I think be reasonable for any professional or true scientist to respond in a similar manner.
That they did not is a clear indication that their work is NOT that of such men, but rather of "true believers", who will not allow mere facts to cloud their perfect perception of the issues.

6/04/2008 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read a blurb somewhere to the effect that "Having the New England Journal of Medicine or anyone of that ilk comment on gun rights or anything even related to guns or gun rights is akin to having Guns and Ammo editors give opinions on heart-surgery methods". The facts are not in dispute, and the cognitive dissonance displayed by ostensibly professional researchers is beyond belief. The rabid left-wing gun-grabbers will never let facts or truth get in the way of their goals. Anyone who supports the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights would be well-advised to join the NRA and support the NRA-ILA to the best of their ability. Dr. Lott is to be commended for his professional, well-researched articles and books, as well as not sinking to the level of his detractors, as if that could even be done. The founding fathers of this country were pure genius at work, and they knew that power corrupts. I only wish that I had the means to express my true feelings regarding the abuse of power in this country and the abuse and misuse of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These documents are more than just ideas and pieces of paper to be trampled on at will. These documents are the reason that we have the freedom to make our comments known without fear of much retaliation. Literally millions of people have died defending our rights, and their memory deserves more than just a brief nod on Memorial Day. The present and past administrations have many times ignored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when they felt that it was politically expedient to do so. We, as a nation, should have more of a legal recourse when our rights are ignored and trampled upon by lawmakers and others in power. Thank you, Mr. Lott, for telling the truth.

6/04/2008 2:20 PM  
Blogger Alan Korwin said...

Intellectual dishonesty within the medical community, with respect to gun issues and the right to keep and bear arms, has reached epidemic proportions. The journal's failure to reply intelligently to Dr. Lott's reasoned and documented editorial response bears this out.

William F. Buckley, in commenting on RFK's refusal to appear on Firing Line, put his finger on that problem precisely. "One can hardly expect baloney to come willingly to the slicer."

Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

6/04/2008 2:26 PM  
Blogger MaverickNH said...

What the authors really mean, in their response, is that everyone they know agrees with them whether they use facts or make them up to support their opinions.

As is, this editorial will be quoted as academic discourse in a peer-reviewed medical journal refuting Lott's claims.

The anti-gun crowd is losing big and continues to lose, so I'm sure they consider their means to justify their intended ends.

6/05/2008 6:11 AM  
Blogger jonathan said...

as in the age of enlightenment where "reason" was all so often perverted, in the age of technology, pseudoscience abounds. particularly when you prod at what otherwise appeared like a paper -- contained a bunch of footnotes, used the royal "we," had exactly four diagrams -- but after a few minutes, turns out to be rather... contrived.

as a scientist, i am so often offended by this sort of attitude towards the method of "no, we were right" that i've learned to just not give certain people the time of day -- you just can't waste your time at a conference trying to lecture the presenter on where his paper has diverged from the method because he's only thinking of his work.

such people just need to remind themselves that being wrong 1,000 times is far better than being right once, and that one is supposed to be skeptical of all 1,001 attempts.

6/05/2008 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Gaviota said...

What is the difference between a doctor and God?

God doesn't think He's a doctor.

The fact that these two doctors were given detailed, documented evidence that the content of their editorial contained errors should (and would, in an intellectually honest scientist) have triggered a dispassionate, intelligent reappraisal of their facts, if not their conclusions.

Just because a man has an MD doesn't mean his ego doesn't obscure his intellect. Or that he's honest.

6/05/2008 12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home