This is... astonishing. I had, of course, heard the 'mythological' version of this story. I hadn't realized that the symptoms were so vague.
Of course: now I've heard that doctors have ingested *cholera* with no adverse effects.
What to make of all of this?!?! I come from the 'hard' sciences, but, although people shy away from the *math*, I feel like I can explain everything that I know quite easily, because the experiments are very extremely controlled and unambiguous. Even 'control experiments' aren't really necessary because, to be frank: either your lights turn on.... or they don't.
I always respected the *other* side of academia out of professional courtesy.
thank you for your really interesting comment. I'm also doing an eye opening course in Classics with the OU, so really the 'other' side-if maths is one side, biology in the middle and humanities the other. I've always felt that history should be studied like a science and weight given to more evidence based sources.
When we question academic integrity apparently we are not questioning the authors personal integrity. They may unintentionally have got the wrong end of the stick. But we should feel free to question or disrespect what they say and not accept it just because they are saying it and they have letters after their name.
I'm discovering many things about history, that generally the whole thing is spin!
I am gobsmacked however that the 'science' of pathology that I've worked in for 20 years and never questioned is also based on such dodgy experiments,not following it's own sacred rules of doing controls, altering one variable at a time, large sample sizes and instead relies on hearsay and the option of 'experts. We can see the hand of those many lots of money out of disease and medicine very easily now we look back with the lights on.
Dear Jo,
This is... astonishing. I had, of course, heard the 'mythological' version of this story. I hadn't realized that the symptoms were so vague.
Of course: now I've heard that doctors have ingested *cholera* with no adverse effects.
What to make of all of this?!?! I come from the 'hard' sciences, but, although people shy away from the *math*, I feel like I can explain everything that I know quite easily, because the experiments are very extremely controlled and unambiguous. Even 'control experiments' aren't really necessary because, to be frank: either your lights turn on.... or they don't.
I always respected the *other* side of academia out of professional courtesy.
I suppose that I no longer extend that courtesy.
Hiya Shiyen,
thank you for your really interesting comment. I'm also doing an eye opening course in Classics with the OU, so really the 'other' side-if maths is one side, biology in the middle and humanities the other. I've always felt that history should be studied like a science and weight given to more evidence based sources.
When we question academic integrity apparently we are not questioning the authors personal integrity. They may unintentionally have got the wrong end of the stick. But we should feel free to question or disrespect what they say and not accept it just because they are saying it and they have letters after their name.
I'm discovering many things about history, that generally the whole thing is spin!
I am gobsmacked however that the 'science' of pathology that I've worked in for 20 years and never questioned is also based on such dodgy experiments,not following it's own sacred rules of doing controls, altering one variable at a time, large sample sizes and instead relies on hearsay and the option of 'experts. We can see the hand of those many lots of money out of disease and medicine very easily now we look back with the lights on.
Jo
Very interesting. I have some no gastric issues, so all apparently OK.