Re: apologies

[jan schnupp <jan.schnupp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Alain,

I'm not sure whether apologies are "needed", but I think it is GREAT that
you made an effort to keep the tone calm and friendly and professional by
saying "I am sorry that I upset Martin".
Tom is right that we need to remain critical about published results, but
it is often difficult to do this in a manner that is respectful to the
authors of the work. In your apology you pointed out that you were not
questioning the integrity of the researchers, but merely trying to point to
difficulties in interpretation which arise in ANY study of a complex
subject matter. I think this a very important point, and acknowledging that
an alternative interpretation does NOT imply that the authors did not do a
good job makes all the difference between constructive criticism and a
counterproductive attack.

Thanks,

Jan

At 12:35 16/05/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Alain, no apology is necessary, at least not to the list.  What goes between
>Martin and yourself is between you two.  However, I will observe that
there is
>far too much unquestioned acceptance of statements and studies in science
and it
>is refreshing to see those who question what is handed down from on high as
>possibly not either absolute or perfect truth.  I know that it is easy to
become
>emotionally involved in questioning anything and this can clound responses
but
>it does not make the questioning itself any the less valid.
>
>Tom
>
>
>Tom Brennan, CCC-A/SLP, RHD
>web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
>web master http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_freemanfj/speechscience.html
>web master http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_freemanfj/fluency.html
>
------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jan Schnupp
Oxford University, Laboratory of Physiology, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PT, U.K.
Tel (+44-1865) 272 513  Fax (+44-1865) 272 469