From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:21:30 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep26.034447.20347@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <lc62fkINNajq@news.bbn.com> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.122743.10247@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>Read an article in the Post yesterday which talked about a study
>>>showing that the average human temperature is 98.2 degrees, not
>>>98.6 degrees as everyone had thought.  The only explanation they
>>>had was the thermometers have gotten more accurate lately...sounds
>>>kind of far reaching to me seeing we've had thermometers capable
>>>of registering .1 degree variation for quite a long time now.
>>
>>Doctors or anyone else dealing regularly with health care have _always_
>>known that 98.6 is only the crudest rule of thumb for average human body
>
>Sorry, *average* body temperature is a single number.

Well, which average?  Average for someone sitting in a doctor's office? 
Average for someone who's just awakened?  Average for someone who's about to go
to sleep?  Are these averages taken during the winter?  During the summer? 
Remember, seasonal affective disorder is a strong indication that season can
influence physiology. I can just see the grant proposal:  A request for 10
million dollars (or more) to hire 1000 (or more) people for a full year to have
their temperatures monitored continuously, said results to be averaged to
provide a single number that's worse than useless, anyway.

Why worse than useless?  Because an individual's temperature's going to vary
cyclicly over time, and individuals won't have identical time/temperature
profiles.  Encouraging the ridiculous belief that there's a single temperature
that everyone's supposed to have all the time is just plain stupid.

>>The "Everyone" who "knew" this fact means only the general public.  And if
>>there is any factor at work here, it is only the need of the general public
>>(and the popular media which distibute "facts" to the general public) to
>>reduce any scientific datum or fact to a single, unequivocal "yes/no"
>>answer, with no margin for error --as if such answers existed anywhere in
>>the real world.
>
>Sorry again, according to the article, 98.6 was taken as the
>*average* body temperature in medical texts.

Fine.  I thought this thread started by questioning science based on this
study.  Please show me what correlation there is between practicing physicians
and science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.