From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves (was: Re: fetus vs. baby)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:19:51 GMT

In <1992Aug19.145921.17136@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.143851.8351@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>>>fred j mccall writes:
>>>>>	"40 days      The baby's brain waves can be detected,
>>>>>		      recorded and even read by a doctor."
>>
>>>Biased source or not, it's a correct figure.  Six to eight weeks of
>>>gestation is the figure I've seen quoted in every single book on
>>>child development that I've read.
>>
>>Well, not quite correct, apparently, since even if we take 6-8 weeks
>>as a correct figure, that's 42-56 days, not 40 days.

>Come off it, Fred.  42 days is approximately equal to 40 days.  There's
>also the fact that there is a development period when brainwaves are
>initially detected (barely detectable) and when brainwaves are easily
>readable on the EEG.  I believe the book John quoted mentions this
>fact (I found it in a bookstore) as does Nathanson.

Come off it, Daryl.  Is 56 days also approximately 42 days?  Did you
note the 'adjustment' that John Haugh II then said could be made?

>>>>The figure I've been given (by someone whose words I trust a hell of a
>>>>lot more than I will ever trust the words of someone like you) is that
>>>>human brain waves appear between the 4th and 5th month.  Tell you
>>>>what, though.  I'll ask her to take a look in her Embryology textbook
>>>>and make sure that her memory isn't flawed.  THEN I will call you a
>>>>liar (again).
>>
>>>Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a gynecologist who used to run the largest
>>>abortion clinic in the world, says six to eight weeks.  Oddly enough,
>>>Dr. Nathanson now finds himself on the pro-life side of things after
>>>looking seriously at what he was doing.  In the introduction to his
>>>book _Aborting_America_, I believe he says he was personally
>>>responsible for performing tens of thousands of abortions.  He's
>>>not what you would call a religious fanatic either; he's a Jewish
>>>atheist.  His arguments are mostly built on logic and reason.  
>>
>>>As a suggestion, Fred, I'd highly recommend your personally making
>>>use of a public library and the treasures within instead of relying
>>>on word-of-mouth information for everything.  
>>
>>I find it incredibly interesting that taking what someone said as fact
>>for one thing has now somehow miraculously equated to "for
>>everything".  

>Without being inflammatory, may I point out that you have yet to post
>a *verifiable* source for any statistics or figures you have quoted
>in any article that I've seen you post to tx.politics.  Ignoring the
>"I saw it on the evening news" episode, you have not cited a single
>reputable book, person, study, or survey that backs you up.  Because
>of this, I made the generalization "for everything."  You're welcome
>to invalidate this generalization.

Well, let's look at the incredibly long note I posted a while back
with citations from several economics texts.  Turns out that that was
'not good enough'.  I've cited NPR as the source of several things,
etc.  If you feel the need to 'verify', call them up!  Otherwise, you
have simply established the 'rule' that only printed matter 'counts'.
And that, I'm afraid, simply doesn't make sense.

>>Frankly, the first thought that occurs to me upon seeing
>>this bit of arrogance is to suggest that you go to your public
>>library, find the biggest book you can, and, well, I'm sure you get
>>the idea.

>Honestly, I'm not trying to be arrogant.  It's simply that you seem to
>get all of your facts "second-hand", from sources that none of us
>can verify.  If you were to post verifiable sources, I might even go
>dig it out myself!  I'm always open to considering other points of
>view (this does NOT mean I'll accept the point of view as valid -- only
>that I'll consider it) -- just point me in the right direction.

>>>You could put your
>>>own doubts completely to rest if you'd simply go to a public library
>>>and look at some encyclopedias or child development texts.
>>
>>Well, I didn't HAVE any reasonable doubts up until now.  You see,
>>unlike some people (apparently), I don't assume someone is lying just
>>because I happen to disagree with them or they say something that I'd
>>prefer not to believe.  

>Several of us have cited references that directly contradict the
>information that you have, and you don't have any reasonable doubts?!
>I can understand having no doubts INITIALLY, but when confronted
>with information that says your information is incorrect, you're not
>even looking into it further?  

You skipped right by that paragraph above, didn't you?  You know, the
one that looks like:

*>>>>The figure I've been given (by someone whose words I trust a hell of a
*>>>>lot more than I will ever trust the words of someone like you) is that
*>>>>human brain waves appear between the 4th and 5th month.  Tell you
*>>>>what, though.  I'll ask her to take a look in her Embryology textbook
*>>>>and make sure that her memory isn't flawed.  THEN I will call you a
*>>>>liar (again).

One more time, for slow readers.  When I get something back, you'll be
the next to know.  The only 'references' I have seen were all
recently, other than unsubstantiated claims by John Haugh II.  Of
course, this newsgroup expires fairly quickly at my site and I don't
always have time to fool with it.  Then again, even in periods where
I'm reading it regularly I've seen references to notes that I've never
seen the originals of, so I'm not sure what that says.

Of course, that makes too much sense to be an acceptable explanation,
and certainly isn't 'verifiable'.

>Like you, I don't assume someone is lying just because I disagree with
>them, but please don't think less of me simply because I verify
>my opponents' information.  Even John Haugh has changed his opinion
>on marijuana legalization because he was confronted with "better"
>facts from his opposition.

I find it difficult to believe that John Haugh ever changed his mind
about anything, given the rigidity that I've seen.  I can't believe a
new thought could find its way in without breaking something.

>>I generally only start disbelieving people
>>when, like John Haugh II, they have demonstrated repeatedly that their
>>standard stock in trade consists primarily of personal insult, lies,
>>wholesale distortion of the facts, and biased presentation whenever it
>>happens to suit them.  Of course, once someone has clearly
>>demonstrated, as has John Haugh II, that that is indeed their usual
>>mode of discussion, I will give much less weight to anything they say,
>>particularly if it contradicts something that someone else with more
>>credibility has said.

>I am not as, ummm..., confrontational as John Haugh.  I believe that
>he does sometimes use language that is too strong when addressing
>his political/ideological opponents.  However, I find your charges
>that he wildly distorts facts and biases his presentations whenever
>it suits him to be stretching the truth.  Obviously, there will always 
>be some bias in a persuasive argument, but there are only a few Haugh 
>discussions that I can think of where he probably did take too much 
>liberty with his information.

Well, the few you've seen must be the majority of his postings that
I've seen, then.  I have REPEATEDLY seen him distort what others have
said, distort the facts, and if all that doesn't work he resorts to
personal attack.

>>I'm curious.  Since I've never seen paper refuse to take ink, why is
>>it that you find a book so much more reliable than someone whose
>>professional training involves having the knowledge?  

>It depends on who wrote the book.  In my case I cited a book written
>by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. (Ob/Gyn, at that) who has extensive
>experience with abortion (he has performed them, he has run a clinic,
>her has taught how to perform them, he has treated women and their
>ailments/conditions, he has lobbied for abortion rights, he has lobbied
>for pro-life causes -- he has seen a lot of things).  He's a credible
>source.

>I know four people in medical school (one near graduation) -- would you
>prefer me to ask them what their textbooks say about child development?
>I'll bet that they agree with Nathanson and the book (1250 questions...)
>that John Haugh cites.

Well, if you can't trust me, should I trust you?

>>After all, this
>>is the first time that Mr. Haugh bothered to give a source for his
>>contention, either.  

>John Haugh *usually* cites his material, whether it's a book, a recognized
>authority in the field, or his own empirical observations.  If you think
>his material (especially his empirical observations) are invalid,
>then please try to refute them with "better" sources.

Yes, and his material is usually some right-wing or pro-life rag that
STARTS with a biased presentation, and he just sucks it up.  Unlike
him, some of us simply don't have hours and hours a day to browse the
magazine shelves.  We work for a living, and that tends to come first
and consume a lot of time.  Hence, we stay informed by doing things
like listening to NPR in the car on the way to and from work (but
that's not 'verifiable') and by catching the evening news while we eat
(which is again not 'verifiable').

>>So, like I said, I will ask Jeanie to check her
>>embryology text and make sure.  Then I'll either cite a source or say
>>that I was previously misinformed.

>My goal in this discussion is to cut through the misinformation and
>get to some of the core issues, not to embarrass you or anyone else.

Right or wrong, I don't expect to be embarrassed.  Unlike adolesents
like John Haugh II, some of us don't wrap our entire ego up in every
note we put on the net.

[We also don't find it necessary to lie about what people say,
redefine words to mean what we want them to, make up positions for
people so we can call them liars, declare people who have disagreed
with us as 'enemies' or any of the other large number of things I've
seen Mr Haugh do since I started reading this particular newsgroup.
Mr. Haugh is in sad need of some maturity, despite his proclaimed age
of 30.  Perhaps he will find some in his impending fatherhood.  One
can only hope.  If not, I pity the poor child.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics