On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point
and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was
extreme. Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in
our work on a drug except what the manufacturer puts on the label.
on
10/23/10 5:42 PM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk at
wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two
numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its
results, even when it added the numbers correctly.
For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little
importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if
one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate
information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way
authoritative.
Very well put. I agree with you completely.
Marc Riddell, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy