From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Prof. Moon et al. on "vitamin" D
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:44:17 GMT

Ken Lehner writes:

>I'd like to think I'm objective, because I know nothing of the subject
>being discussed.  I had a few questions and comments about the following
>post:

Ken, welcome abord to the human condition!  I'm sure that we all
think ourselves to be priviledged with a surplus of objectivity, or
at least a requisite amount.  That you at least reflect upon this
tendency to habitually pride ourselves in being "objective" already
sets in motion that important corrective of humility that, I think, 
will indeed help foster a greater degree of objectivity.  :-)


>Ted Wayn Altar writes:
>|> 
>|> Here are some of the concluding remarks from this scholarly paper:
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^

>Why did the poster need to include this adjective, after giving the
>citation?  Sets off an alarm in my mind.

The "poster" added this modifer, "scholarly", because he thought
it a fitting descriptor.  The paper cites 203 references from 
scientific journals.  The paper forwards an unifying hypothesis 
to make sense of a huge amount of experimental data and bodies of knowledge
Finally, the paper has been published in a respectable journal, not 
some non-academic journal.  I think it is a fair descriptor to
call such a paper "scholarly".  This doesn't entail that it is
"right" but it does attempt to convey the fact that the paper is
broad sweeping and thoughfully draws upon a lot of highly technical and
specialized information.


>|>      observation.  Thus, the 10 edition of the US RDAs
>|>      concludes:
>|>           Since the toxic level of vitamin D may in some
>|>           cases be only 5 times the RDA, and there is
>|>           evidence that sunlight-stimulated production of the
>|>           vitamin active throughout the warm months, dietary
>                   ^^^^^
>				   missing something?

>|>           supplements may be detrimental for the normal
>|>           child or adult who drinks at least two glasses of
>|>           vitamin D-fortified milk per day.

>Did they say that such fortified milk was potentially dangerous?  On the
>face of it, the words seem to indicate that this is acceptable.  What's
>the difference between such milk and "dietary supplements"?

Good question.  Now, I read this passage as denoting "dietary
supplements" as something in addition to those 2 glasses of milk,
like that of a multivitamin pill.  Given this interpretation, 
what are we to think about the drinking of 3 glasses of milk?  ;-)
Or, what about the individual who has much more than the average
amount of sun exposure during those warm months; then does
those 2 glasses of milk become reduced to 1?   


>|> I think we can all agree that we must always be wary and
>|> leery of those PSEUDO-EXPERTS who would merely make his or
>|> her assertions `ex-cathedra', who would resort to a
>|> patronizing tone or even insults, and ultimately would
>|> disrespect your independent intelligence.  The truly
>|> informed have no need to belittle others and are quite

>Doesn't mean that the truly informed don't belittle others, though.  It is
>not true that "someone is truly informed if and only if they do not
>belittle others".  Actually, what you say is not true.  The acknowledged
>expert in a given field may have psychological reasons for belittling
>others; such reasons have no relationship to that person's expertise.

I agree with your logic, but while the form of my statement
was indeed worded as a general proposition or "universal affirmative",
it was intended as a *prescription* rather than as a literal
universal *description*.

Having said that, however, permit me to venture for your
consideration a personal observation.  My experience of having
seen lecture leading intellectuals/experts like, say, Northlop Frye 
or Noam Chomsky, is that these people evince a remarkable degree
of self-restraint and humility.  For example, Noam Chomsky who
the New York Times Book Review once said:

	"Judged in terms of the power, range,
	novelty and influence of his thought,
	Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important 
	intellectual alive"

I personally think there is some truth to this statement  ;-)
Often, when Noam Chomsky is introduced by a moderator, this
sentence from the NYTBR is often cited.  Noam Chomsky,
however, repeatedly tries to deflate this glowing accolade
by pointing out that the New York Times Book Review was merely
parroting what one of his publishers wrote on the jacket of
one his books. 

Chomsky is extremely patient and forgiving of even
his critics and for years, in spite of a tremedous
busy schedual lecturing the world-wide and prolifically writing
scholarly books, Chomsky has also maintained a prolific correspondance
with ordinary people who simply have written to him out of the
blue.  I know of one student who did just that and was glad to
have received a long and very gracious and informative letter from
this eminent sholar.   Noam Chomsky, as you may know, is a
leading and original thinker in psycolinguistics and political 
science.  It is rare enough to become eminent in just one small 
and narrowly defined field of intellectual endeavor, but here we
have the remarkable accomplishment of one person being a leading 
thinker in two quite disparate accademic fields!

I could give many other examples, but I will concur that no
doubt some exceptions can be found.  In general, I do think
that this kind of academic humility and graciousness is
a natural outcome of becoming so knowledgeable in an intellectual
discipline that one then recognizes the overwhelming complexity
and uncertainty of things.  Maybe one also internalizes that general 
collective attitude of scientific cautiousness and humility.  
As Einstein once said:

	"as the circle of our knowledge expands, so does the
	circumference of our ignorance"


>|> willing to patiently explain and provide substantiation or
>|> references for their crucial points.

>See above.

See living examples like Noam Chomsky.

>Ken "don't know nothing 'bout biology" Lehner

Ted "don't know much of the French I took
    But I do know that with more human humility
    What a more wonderful world this would be"   ;-)  :-)

						ted



Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition