Yesterday's New York Times...

[R. A. Jacobs]

I am delighted that Dr. Gross  responded so helpfully to my message 
and blush modestly at his praise for my credentials. The same modesty 
obliges me to omit them from this missive. I apologize for being 
unaware of his medical credentials. I've remedied some of that 
ignorance by consulting his very impressive website. It appears to 
have two informative entries on Chinese medicine, plus one on 
alternative diabetes remedies. The entry on Chinese herbs looks very 
useful and I shall recommend it to a past student of mine presently 
studying that field. I have also read the paragraphs from his Lacus 
talk in which he refers to medical experiences. But I still have a 
failure of understanding.

I don't quite understand the point of citing Taubes' claim that "some 
epidemiologists and doctors are likely to support his position and 
others are likely to oppose it". I couldn't relate it to what I 
wrote, perhaps because I have no data to evaluate the degree of 
likelihood and Taubes cites none on this. I assume that, if such 
professionals exist, there may be more than one.  But I completely 
agree with Dr. Gross on his claims about life and death.

I also failed to perceive the relevance of Dr. Gross's areas of 
expertise in medical matters to my point that it can be dangerous to 
use material from a field outside one's expertise to score points 
about one's own field. Mea culpa!

I'm glad to report that my stance on linguistics is probably a lot 
closer to Dr. Gross's than he suspects. My point had more to do with 
misleading interpretations of epidemiological discourse, and the 
risks of relying on less credentialed experts than I or Dr. Gross for 
arguments about linguistics. The points Dr. Gross makes elsewhere 
about evidence-based linguistics are infinitely more interesting.

Best wishes,

Ricky Jacobs

>----- Original Message ----------



>  Taubes makes it quite clear that some epidemiologists and doctors are likely
>to support his position and others are likely to oppose it. This means that
>while this correspondent is fortunate in having an epidemiologist for a son,
>it truly adds nothing to our discussion.
>  Perhaps it needs to be noted, since so many here seem to be almost totally
>wedded to theory, that the results of Epidemiological Research, unlike the
>results of Mainstream Linguistics Research, can have an immediate, direct,
>and practical impact, sometimes touching on life and death.
>  I am of course deeply impressed by the eighteen lines of credentials this
>professor finds necesary to add to his signature, and this triumph of good
>taste leads me to believe that it would not have been amiss, since the claim
>has been made that someone is "using material in a field in which one lacks
>expertise," if the person making this claim could have at least glanced at
>the material on my website at:
>
>http://language.home.sprynet.com/otherdex.htm#chinmed
>
>as well as the opening paragraphs (under the Linguistics menu) of my invited
>LACUS presentation two years ago.  If this had been done, it would have been
>discovered, along with two papers appearing in a medical review, that I have
>been concerned with the nexus of medicine and linguistics for at least the
>last twenty years.  I can't help wondering if the apparent bone of
>contention here has more to do with my perspective on linguistics than
>anything--actually, nothing that I can think of (though it's always a good
>idea to try changing the subject)--that I have ever written about
>epidemiology.