Re: apologies (jan schnupp )

Subject: Re: apologies
From:    jan schnupp  <jan.schnupp(at)PHYSIOL.OX.AC.UK>
Date:    Thu, 17 May 2001 10:03:55 +0100

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 >web master >web master > ------------------------------------------------------ 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

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University