It’s nice to know that people really do read the blog. According to
Statcounter most of the hits are coming from
Ravelry and from
NaBloPoMo, which isn’t really surprising, but I’ve also gotten
Google hits from searches on “medical activism” and “blood groups why are they different?” It’s nice to know I’m being read, and I even have a few comments to respond to.
Scooterbird, whose secret identity is my husband, Steve, commented on the post “
Mathematics as a Language“
“It really isn’t “check the math yourself”…you have to check more than that. There’s more to the use of stats - often common sense will tell you enough to know that a number is being misused, even when the overall math is correct. Sure, 2+2=4, but what does “4″ mean in this context? And so forth…”
I’d agree with that absolutely. As I said,watch out for “liars, damn liars and statisticians”, and remember that sincere misinterpretation can be as dangerous as deliberate manipulation of the numbers.
meloukhia commented on “Why I Go Orgo” with the observation
“I hadn’t read that study on the nutritional value of organic foods; thanks for linking to that post. I had always suspected that organic foods were probably more sound nutritionally because of the healthier soil on which they are grown, which would suggest more absorption of useful minerals.
I would offer a note of caution with so-called “Free Range” foods, because that label doesn’t mean what most people think it means. Food labeling is extremely deceptive, and a “free range” chicken can still be raised inside a shed, as long as the farmer leaves a door open for a few hours every day. “Pasture raised” is probably a better bet, since it suggests that the animal actually gets to go outside and eat grass.”
This is a really good point. The truth is, while there are several agencies which will certify “Organic” produce (each of which has publicly available criteria) I don’t think there’s any agency doing the same thing for ‘free range’ or ‘pasture raised’ meat or dairy products. Your best bet is to buy locally, talk to the farmer yourself, and maybe even drive by for a visit. It’s not always possible, but it’s worth a shot.
Finally, I thought you’d enjoy this response to Bioethics, a Retrospective:
Dear Blogger,
Thank you for posting my previous note in its entirety. I appreciate it very much. I wanted to disagree, however, with your rather one sided stance on the motivations for scientific research, and your rather objectionable characterization of rogue researchers as ‘mad scientists’.
There are many reasons to pursue pure research, and they are not all related to winning the Nobel Prize. Many of us feel that, if humanity is to survive the next few decades (to say nothing of centuries) there will have to be some rather dramatic solutions to a number of global problems, caused, in the final analysis, by overpopulation. We are under no illusions that taking foreceful steps to solve these problems will make us popular, but fee that sometimes the ethical choice is not the popular one.
The goal is not to be beloved, but to save the world by returning the human population to sustainable levels without destroying the technological base.
I’m sure that many of your readers will agree with me.
Respectfully yours,
Dr. Debra “Debbie” Woo
Well, that’s out there. I’m all for solving the problem of overpopulation, but I’m bothered by the doctor’s suggestion of ‘dramatic’ solutions and ‘forceful steps’. I suppose it’s possible to construct a set of ethics which allows for it, but that doesn’t mean that it could ever be moral. How about you, readers?
Oh, and a final, timely note:
- Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
- The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
- I know of no reason
- Why Gunpowder Treason
- Should ever be forgot.
-