[WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?

[Ray Saintonge]

Marc Riddell wrote:

>>Still, some amateurs are careful in their research, and some
>>professionals do not feel offended when their assumptions are questioned.
>>    
>>
>The only assumption I ever make in my work is: if the person is experiencing
>pain it is a signal there is something wrong. My role is to locate the
>source of that pain and try to eliminate it. If a person presents with a
>knife sticking out of their belly, or a bone is protruding though their
>skin, the diagnosis of the source is rather simple. In Mental Health (MH)
>which needs to be distinguished from Emotional Health (EH) [another subject
>for another time] the search for the source can (and is) much more complex.
>It also carries with it a factor not present in most med/surg conditions ­
>cultural stigma.
>
I agree that it's a subject for another time, but in the public mind the 
two tend to be indistinguishable.

>³Assumption² is a slippery word in my field. In the field of physics, if I
>drop an object from a height in our atmosphere, one can reasonably assume it
>is going to end up on the ground. This ³assumption² becomes a fact by doing
>it. And, there are zillions of incidents in the past that can be pointed to
>as verification of that fact. ³Facts² (such as they are) in the field of
>Clinical Psychology are based on countless case histories of persons who
>have presented with similar symptoms and behaviors, and have responded well
>to similar therapies resulting in wellness. And this is not absolute. The
>one vital ingredient necessary to consider here are the instincts the
>professional caregiver.
>
"Assumption" is a slippery word in any field.  "Hypothesis" is a better 
word.  The "fact" will be what is empirically observed in a single 
experiment.  Repeated results with identical facts will aubstantiate the 
hypothesis.  I don't know that you can validly say that facts are "based 
on" case histories.  To me they would be the separate incidents that go 
into making up a case history.  The accumulated experience of multiple 
case histories becomes the fodder for revised hypotheses.

Pharmacology alone is seldom a cure, but it can calm a crisis so that 
the therapist can explore the origins in search of a real solution.  But 
then not all chemotheraputic agents are 100% effective in cancer treatment.

Instincts, insights and intuition fall outside of the rigid barriers of 
the scientific method.  All the anecdotal evidence in the world is not 
going to convince a religious adherent to the scientific method that 
these themes have any validity.  The influences of Aristotle go that deep.

>The important issue in our context here, as I see it, is that we are trying
>to write an encyclopedia of fact, not opinion. If an expert (ouch, yes, I
>used the word) in a field writes facts in that field as they know them to
>be, I believe it presents a problem when a non-expert (there I did it again)
>edits out those facts, and substitutes their opinion.
>
Both experts and non-experts can fall into the trap of confusing fact 
with opinion, and defend their respective determinations tenaciously.  
Some will carefully distinguish the two with the statement that facts 
are what they state in an argument, and opinions are what their 
opponents put forth.

>If the above constitutes a diatribe, so be it. If you don¹t want to hear the
>bell, don¹t push the button :-).
>
If there's one thing that Wikipedians do well it's push buttons. :-)

Ec