Brian,

What an excellent (but discouraging)example, of good science being surrounded by biased humans who process the science.

Back when I was in a far more "publish or perish" environment than I am now I have to say that every peer review process I went through as an author or co-author there was always some comment from SOME reviewer that I thought was totally off base and I had that "you have to be kidding me" reaction. How one responds to that kind of thing is DEFINITELY the political end of the scientific process if you want to get published but also, apparently, if you want your publication to be considered in making policy decisions!

Nelie

Mark - I promise to keep my political opinions to myself. And I won't have ANYTHING to argue about if you guys keep taking my side of the banter about bias in statistics! Don't make me start talking about how dependable nubers are....

Glenn - Don't suppress those disagreements. Didn't your mom tell you that suppressing your feelings is bad for you!!?? (Also, running with scissors is bad.) I would enjoy hearing your views.

There is a wonderful book about bias called "In A Different Voice" by Carol Giligan. She makes a strong case about how many of the things we see and do contain invisible bias that truly directs the outcomes and conclusions around us - mostly unseen. Its a good read and worth the trouble. I wish statistics were ONLY used by scientists who understood them - but they aren't. The daily papers are pocked with tables and graphs, assertions and conclustions filled with numbers snatched from some well-meaning number cruncher.

Here you go: "80% of college students are on drugs, 62.5% of men secretly want to learn ballet, 50% of fourth graders are on diets, and a clear majority of people in Kansas believe the world to be flat." "Without the math or math references, these comments are just silly. With the magic of the numbers in the them, they invite scrutiny and evaluation. If I see one I want to believe in there, I will. (I KNEW Kansas was dangerous!!)

Please rescue me from the linear/sequentials of the world who want our understanding of people to come from math. As a cancer patient in treatment, I began to feel like a bucket with an interesting bug in it. So impersonal, so wrenching, so humbling to be the bucket.

Blood counts, cc's of this and cc's of that, rads, and hours, and pounds and calories. It was hard to be more than my numbers. I accept the importance of the numbers (steady Nelie)and appreciate their role. But those numbers didn't then, and don't now explain my experience. If you only saw the numbers, you didn't really see me. You could know my numbers and still not know what happened to me. Look at how we sign our names here....

Counting drinks means little more. Need a statistic to support your social drinking? Here is a good one: "85%", or need a statistic to justify not drinking? I have one for you: "91%". Contact me if you do not see the number you need, we have others in stock and available on short notice. Tom

Tom,

It all depends on what you want to understand, for example individual experience or what happens in general. Have you read Ken Wilbur at all? There's more than one type of knowledge about the world and more than one criterion for what counts as acceptable knowledge as a result.

Truthfully, I'd rather my doctor understand as much as he/she can about my cancer (I have had two cancers and two primary docs for each), including the statistics in general for everyone with the disease and for the success of different forms of treatment, the physiology of the disease, the physiological details of my particular case and what treatment will work with me, his/her patient's experiences in general, my experience in particular, how his/her interaction with patients affects their experience and how his/her interaction with me affects me.

Obviously statistics and knowledge collected using the scientific method would be of help in some of those forms of knowledge and of no use in other forms. Fortunately it's not really such a dichotomy as you are making it. Some of us can call ourselves "quant. jocks" and still understand that not every question can be answered that way and value the place of qualitative understanding as well--and use those other methods where appropriate! There is no inherent dichotomy between one or the other form of understanding, contrary to a lot of useless raging academic debate, unless you buy into the idea that everyone who can think linearly and abstractly enough to undertand statistics lacks empathy and creativity and has no other skills.

And as for my docs, I hope they really see me as well as the numbers, but in many ways I care more that they are skilled at the scientific end of the spectrum, if I had to choose between the two.

Nelie

This thread has drifted sufficiently off the topic of post treatment behavior, remember? Drinking. Now it is one of our standard statistics arguments, well peppered with the generally myopic views on alcohol consumption, held by that group of members that have had problems with its use (or been tied to someone with a problem). We have done this before, and it has, aside from the intellectual stimulation or being a sounding board for the "those who enjoy the intellectual game," accomplished nothing. Start a "useless information

Nelie - We are far afield from our discussion. Its no wonder Glenn is getting grumpy. Lets just try to agree that numbers that link alcohol use to cancer may not be conclusive. Further, trying to tie continued alcohol use to cancer recurrance is going to need a bit more study before most of us are going to be willing to change our drinking behaviors - whatever they might now be.

Glenn - my personal views about drinking are not myopic. My opinions formed over many years with a wide variety of experiences, both personal and professional. If you don't like my views, thats fine. If my humor offends you, my apologies. But don't trump my participation with anger or indignation. And please don't tackle tough personal problems armed only with computer posts from people you know little about. Discussion IS valuable, even when it drifts. Its how we learn and grow.

Alcohol use is a very tough topic. And there ARE several people here who are worth listening to on the subject. Don't let the rhetoric or the banter dim the learning. Minds are like parachutes. They work best when open. Tom

Tom,

Perhaps you are a little defensive over alcohol use, there is no anger here. I commented on the post and I'll remind you, you asked me to. I will take exception to your characterization of my knowledge of these people, I'm around here a very long time and have more personal knowledge about this sickness than most. I do find you humor pleasant, but I do get "grumpy" when a post goes off topic. Even in the above reply you continue using vague references to alcohol use. I'm sorry, your posts do not come off as well balanced on the issue, hence, in my view, myopic. Which, was directed at the thread. This is not personal, unless you feel the need to take it there. As a final thought, you have no right to characterize any of this as "a tough personal" problem. You have not seen enough here to make a statement like that.

Glenn

I'm sorry about contributing to topic drift with the statistics argument.

As for the drinking thing, the comment I've head here that personally works for me the best (but I'm in no way suggesting this should work for other people here)is that this is one of those things you can control that MAY make a difference. There's so much you can't control about what happens, beyond getting aggressive treatment to begin with, that for those of us who are control freaks, this is soemthing we can feel like we're "doing".

Nelie

Glenn - My apologies for the missed communication. I misread your post:

"I'm trying here to fight through a though physical situation myself, and nothing I have read helps me out."

- thinking that you were angry that our discussion was not helping you through a tough personal situation. My fault. And no, it isn't personal. Oh, the perils of being divided by a common language!!

On the lighter side: "My mother in law's Thanksgiving turkey was so undercooked, I think a skilled veterinarian could have revived it." Smile and the world smiles with you. Tom

Well, my Dad always told me that "fools rush in where Angels fear to tread", so here I am. For 3 yrs. before John's cancer surgery he had been on a low fat diet because of some blockage in his arteries, high blood pressure and high colestrol.
Since the cancer tx. He is eating cream of this and that,laced with extra cheese and butter, rich white sauces,tons of gravey, pounds of pasta. And he drinks a 2 or 3 cans of beer a day-hey-it's calories! He is still 25 lbs. underweight and I can count most of the bones in his body. So which part of his body is being abused now? He could go back to the low fat diet and no alcohol and just melt away, I suppose. Amy

Amy, more than one person suggested to me that deep dark beer has a ton of calories. Never having been much of a drinker, I am concerned about calories. As I've been whipping up those 1300 milkshakes posted here, I must confess that several times when my spouse and I have ventured out in public to adult venues, I've ordered Kahula and Cream---not for the buzz factor but for the calories. My days of drinking margaritas might be over, but the Kahula and Cream on the rocks is much like drinking chocolate milk.

Of course, I'm aware of the risk factors of alcohol, but I consider a couple shots a month to be minimal. Most of the time the calorie intake outweighs the risk factor. I'm usually the only one at the table ordering cheesey calorie laden appetizers as well...lol.

I hate to digress from the statistics, but sometimes it just feels good to taste again--anything. My spouse opened up a bottle of cherry and honey mead for Thanksgiving. While I couldn't drink more than a few sips, it was a blessing to just taste it briefly.

Meanwhile, cheese, butter, cream and gravy have become a staple in my daily intake. <G> Calories are calories no matter how they come.

Jen