gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) (05/01/85)
In the last week, I have seen two separate scientific articles use the
expression "controlled experiment". ("In one of the few controlled
experiments using voice input, . . ." -- Leggett and Williams, IntJMMS,
21(6), p.497)
Is this simply an egregious redundancy, similar to the popular "past
history", or is it a true retronym; that is, has the word "experiment"
become so loose, even in scientific writing, that "uncontrolled experiment"
is now a meaningful concept?
--
\\\\ Graeme Hirst University of Toronto Computer Science Department
//// utcsri!utai!gh / gh.toronto@csnet-relay / 416-978-8747rk9005@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski) (05/05/85)
In article <477@utai.UUCP> gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) writes: >expression "controlled experiment". ("In one of the few controlled >... > Is this simply an egregious redundancy, similar to the popular "past >history", or is it a true retronym; that is, has the word "experiment" I would believe that "controlled experiment" deals with "controls" (people, animals, blocks of wood, ...) who get everything but the critical "treatment". It's a device for removing or detecting any bias in the procedure, albeit still an imperfect one. Dick ps Does this really get out to the net? -- Dick Karpinski Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick (415) 666-4529 (12-7) BITNET: dick@ucsfcca Compuserve: 70215,1277 Telemail: RKarpinski USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (05/05/85)
I think that it is redundancy, used to emphasize the care that was taken
in controlling the experiment.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarpoppers@aecom.UUCP (Michael Poppers) (05/06/85)
From Graeme Hirst (...!utai!gh) comes this question: > In the last week, I have seen two separate scientific articles use the > expression "controlled experiment". ("In one of the few controlled > experiments using voice input, . . ." -- Leggett and Williams, IntJMMS, > 21(6), p.497) > > Is this simply an egregious redundancy, similar to the popular "past > history", or is it a true retronym; that is, has the word "experiment" > become so loose, even in scientific writing, that "uncontrolled experiment" > is now a meaningful concept? It's been a little while since I took a statistics course, but I seem to recall that statistical studies could be done by using or not using control groups. So, while I hate to spoil the fun (and I *have* enjoyed all these retronyms), and while the use of "experiment" was a little dangerous with everyone on guard for syntactical ambiguities that could get them into W. Safire's column, no go, Graeme! (Hello? Is this the Squad Squad?) BTW, anyone want to give a history on "no go", which seems to be orphaned in this world of the Space Age? [][][][][][][][][] % PERITUS CLAVIS % Michael Poppers % MACHINAE VIVIT % {philabs,cucard,pegasus,rocky2}!aecom!poppers [][][][][][][][][] 143 Bennett Ave-Apt 3P New York, NY 10040
jc@mit-athena.UUCP (John Chambers) (05/09/85)
The term "controlled experiment" is at least a century old in the scientific literature, and was adopted for good reason. "Experiment" wasn't originally a scientific term; it predates the development of the modern scientific method. And the modifier "controlled" is not just a buzz word to make it sound more scientific; it has a well-defined, very precise meaning. People have always been doing experiments, usually without any controls. Sometimes these experiments turn out to be useful anyway, but usually they just lead to "more research is needed" conclusions. The uncontrolled experiments I like are the ones that test evolutionary theory. Many people are taking part in such tests right now. Did you read the recent news about the Salmonella outbreaks in the Midwest? They have been traced back to resistant strains of bacteria that were forcibly evolved in area feedlots, by the simple technique of giving low doses of antibiotics to cattle. The result was to kill off the more susceptible bacteria, with only the resistant ones surviving each generation. These experiments do have controls, in a sense, since there are cattle around that are not being fed the antibiotics, and their bacteria are not evolving resistance. But the feedlot owners haven't been running a controlled experiment; the controls are owned by different people, and they differ in other ways (such as place of habitation, food sources, etc.) from the feedlot cattle. There's a less vital but funnier evolutionary experiment going on in most American cities. Owners of lawns have been selecting for short-stemmed dandelions for a long time by the simple method of mowing the flowers off of plants that have long stems. Short-stemmed races live in most American cities now, but their country cousins still have their flowers on long stems that are more likely to be visible to pollinators. It's especially interesting that most of the short-stemmed varieties grow longer stems about when the seeds ripen. We are evolving what is likely the planet's first lawnmower-distributed species. Again, this hasn't been a controlled experiment, because of the fact that the two populations differ in many other ways than just how they are mowed. There was an important uncontrolled experiment done back in the 40's and early 50's in a lot of hospitals, which has gotten some publicity in the scientific press. Many hospitals adopted the practice of putting premature babies into oxygen tents, for reasons that were never very clear. People though that it would help them somehow. Actually, it blinded a lot of them, and left many others with badly damaged sight. This amounted to a large scale experiment on the effects of high oxygen levels on infants. Unfortunately, there were no controls used, so it took years to collect the incriminating evidence, and the damage went on for years longer than it should have. This incident is very useful in arguments about the ethicality of "using people as experimental subjects". The fact is that using any unproven treatment amounts to experimenting on patients, but without controls, you are adding the extra insult of performing a bad experiment and sacrificing subjects unnecessarily. (Now if God had done a good job of designing this world, we'd never get sick or injured, and this would all be unnecessary. :-) -- John Chambers [...!decvax!mit-athena] He who has made no mistakes has probably made nothing at all.
li63sdl@sdcc7.UUCP (DAVID SMITH) (05/11/85)
In article <1521@aecom.UUCP> poppers@aecom.UUCP (Michael Poppers) writes: > > BTW, anyone want to give a history on "no go", which seems to be >orphaned in this world of the Space Age? > > > [][][][][][][][][] > % PERITUS CLAVIS % Michael Poppers > % MACHINAE VIVIT % {philabs,cucard,pegasus,rocky2}!aecom!poppers > [][][][][][][][][] 143 Bennett Ave-Apt 3P New York, NY 10040 I seem to recall from somewhere that decision points were known as "GO, NO GO" points. I think it may have come from some text on computer algorithms, but I'm not sure, it could also be from the space agency.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (05/12/85)
Some of my favorite experiments are uncontrolled.
Usenet, for example.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gamdmm@calmasd.UUCP (David M. MacMillan) (07/31/85)
I'm just working through back-postings in nlang, so please
pardon me if this is redundant. The terms "GO" and "NO GO"
are legitimate machining and manufacturing terms. A "GO" gauge
and a companion "NO GO" gauge together bracket the tolerances of
a particular piece. (They are often combined into one instrument.)
Thus they permit a quick test to see if a part has been
manufactured within tolerance.
I have seen training films on the subject from the 1940's,
but do not know the ultimate origin of the terms. (The use of
such gauges may in fact predate these terms.) Since these gauges
are closely connected with interchangeable parts, a good place
to look might be the beginnings of mass production (the Colt
arms factory?). The development of modern machine tools
(Whitworth, the 1830's, and all that) might be another source.
From an information processing point of view, it is interesting
that these terms which originated in the static measurement of a
part were adopted for the dynamic control of a process (e.g.
"all systems GO").
David M. MacMillan