Dear Sir
In your September issue, Dr Patrick F James states an unconventional definition for “the mean of any feature”. In common speech, as any dictionary will confirm, “mean” may be used with any one of several different “meanings”. Scientific writing today customarily reserves it for the “arithmetic mean” (or simple average) of all the relevant quantities, a usage from which the mathematician’s geometric mean and harmonic mean are minor variants. In view of the widespread practice throughout quantitative science, Dr James’s definition can but add to confusion. He may indeed argue that, under natural selection, the arithmetic mean of any measurable character (his “feature”?) will evolve towards an optimum for the species: this is a scientific assertion that may need further clarification of terms, even in relation to the interesting questions that underlie his letter.
Surely those who purport to be involved in any field of science or scholarship must deplore the casual attitude to words once exhibited by Humpty Dumpty. Some of your readers will remember that, only a few years ago, the statement “I am allergic to XYZ” was popular with the younger generation as a euphemism for “I dislike XYZ”, where XYZ could be a person, a food, a fashion, or even a law. Other technical terms (eg “Laser”) are at risk from similar misuse. Language is too important for us to practise or encourage debasement of its currency in our own Newsletter.
Professor David Finney
Edinburgh
The Editor feels that if he attempted to police the linguistic precision of every contribution to the Newsletter his task would become impossible, especially given the range of topics covered. The Newsletter is produced very cheaply in the Editor’s very limited spare time and it is in the Institute’s financial interests that this should continue to be so. However, the Editor is pleased to facilitate debate on such topics and would be pleased to receive the views of other readers - including a response from Dr James.
Dear Sir
In response to your request for feedback from members:
I enjoy the newsletter and the Journal of Biosocial Science as they provide information, views and reviews not easily accessible elsewhere.
I appreciate the high scientific standards that are set for the Journal. From my professional perspectives in clinical psychology, teaching and community work, I would like to see more articles that include practical recommendations, and that stimulate thinking and connections of disciplines for this purpose.
Following Galton’s own interests, I would like to see encouragement for research that checked on the effects on competent brain function of many developments in technology and culture (eg noise levels, discos and fast-moving video clips) in the same way that today we are concerned about the physiological effects of new products and, often with delayed lawsuits and class actions, of products once deemed harmless, such as asbestos and thalidomide.
I would also like to see more future-oriented discussion of what interventions may be possible in the future on the urgent issue of population, to consider how a social structure with fewer children could function happily and healthily for individuals and for communities without, for example, the unfortunate consequences that can be seen occurring in China.
I would be happy to contribute pieces on these areas of interest for your consideration. I would also like information on any journals that are relevant to such discussions. Does the Journal of Biosocial Science consider any such discussion papers? Although its terms of reference would appear to include them, published articles are almost always reports of research papers on specific topics, usually concerned with genetics or surveys on aspects of reproductive behaviour.
Dr Valerie Yule
Monash University
Australia
The Editor is always pleased to receive contributions to the Newsletter from members