Most researchers and professionals (regardless of field of study) feel some degree of embarrassment or humiliation when they have made statements or published comments or studies in which even the smallest of errors are discovered.
Even schoolchildren express dismay when learning that they have answered a basic math question incorrectly.
Book publishers and authors are often “mortified” by any typographical errors in a final published edition of a book.
Almost no one is immune to a sense of humility when proven wrong, and even fewer do not feel a flush of humiliation when errors are found in a subject matter in which they claim to have unique knowledge and expertise.
It would stand to reason that the higher the academic credentials, the increased embarrassment that would be felt by an individual when errors are found that demonstrate a lack of diligence, knowledge, or expertise on their part. Because, after all, it is to those who appear to have more education, knowledge and learning in a specific area of study that we rely on to provide us with the most accurate information.
Which is why the response of Dr. John Bini and Dr. Stephen Cohn is so astounding. In light of grievous, numerous and startling errors in their article, “Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs,” published in Annals of Surgery, May 2012 issue, Bini and Cohn continue to “go on the road” and tout their study as if it were flawless in its methodology, claims and conclusions.
Without ever addressing how they came to identify the dogs in their article as “pit bulls” or why they relied on a youtube video as a reference source, Bini and Cohn continue to hawk their study shamelessly.
Without ever addressing how they came to believe, publish and base a large part of their paper on a claim that there are only 2,239 “pit bulls” in the entire United States, Bini and Cohn continue to give radio interviews citing their study. (A future post will address this startling and incomprehensible error by Bini that the TOTAL population of “pit bulls” equals 2,239 dogs.)
When Bini and Cohn’s errors were directly addressed in a published letter to the editor of the Annals of Surgery, May 2012 issue, Bini and Cohn did not respond to a single specific or documented error, except to say, ‘we make no claim on being veterinary or forensic experts.“
Indeed, this could very well be the most accurate statement Bini and Cohn have published.
Which then begs the question, why did Bini and Cohn undertake a study that was so clearly NOT their area of expertise? And why do they continue to defend it when veterinary experts HAVE found their study to be erroneous?
Shameless is the only word that comes to mind.
Even schoolchildren express dismay when learning that they have answered a basic math question incorrectly.
Book publishers and authors are often “mortified” by any typographical errors in a final published edition of a book.
Almost no one is immune to a sense of humility when proven wrong, and even fewer do not feel a flush of humiliation when errors are found in a subject matter in which they claim to have unique knowledge and expertise.
It would stand to reason that the higher the academic credentials, the increased embarrassment that would be felt by an individual when errors are found that demonstrate a lack of diligence, knowledge, or expertise on their part. Because, after all, it is to those who appear to have more education, knowledge and learning in a specific area of study that we rely on to provide us with the most accurate information.
Which is why the response of Dr. John Bini and Dr. Stephen Cohn is so astounding. In light of grievous, numerous and startling errors in their article, “Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs,” published in Annals of Surgery, May 2012 issue, Bini and Cohn continue to “go on the road” and tout their study as if it were flawless in its methodology, claims and conclusions.
Without ever addressing how they came to identify the dogs in their article as “pit bulls” or why they relied on a youtube video as a reference source, Bini and Cohn continue to hawk their study shamelessly.
Without ever addressing how they came to believe, publish and base a large part of their paper on a claim that there are only 2,239 “pit bulls” in the entire United States, Bini and Cohn continue to give radio interviews citing their study. (A future post will address this startling and incomprehensible error by Bini that the TOTAL population of “pit bulls” equals 2,239 dogs.)
When Bini and Cohn’s errors were directly addressed in a published letter to the editor of the Annals of Surgery, May 2012 issue, Bini and Cohn did not respond to a single specific or documented error, except to say, ‘we make no claim on being veterinary or forensic experts.“
Indeed, this could very well be the most accurate statement Bini and Cohn have published.
Which then begs the question, why did Bini and Cohn undertake a study that was so clearly NOT their area of expertise? And why do they continue to defend it when veterinary experts HAVE found their study to be erroneous?
Shameless is the only word that comes to mind.
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteYeah, these people who rely on unreliable sources for pitbull information almost always misquote people who are pitbull people.
ReplyDelete