Fact/value confusion

Fact/value confusion describes the tendency to regard and present strongly held values as facts. For example, the debate over abortion, pro and con, often proceeds with value commitments pla)dng the role of fact. In another example, a doctor may be unaware of how his personal religious or sectarian convictions influence how he interprets data and directs patient treatment/ A patient safety leader may make the opposite mistake, appealing only to facts to motivate a needed change in culture while remaining blind to or mute about the relevance of ethical and emotional issues. 

As follows from these formulas, at a finite distance from the earth the potential of the centrifugal force, as well as its first derivatives, have finite values and are continuous. The fact that Uc and grad Uc increase unlimitedly with an increase of x and y should not confuse us because our study takes place either on the earth s surface or relatively close to it. Besides, as we know, the value of co is very small. In this light it is proper to notice that the earth s figure is mainly defined by the force of attraction because the influence of rotation is very small. As concerns the Lapla-cian, that is, a sum of second derivatives, it is constant outside the earth. 

The basis for calculating the correlation between two variables xj and xk is the covariance covariance matrix (dimension m x m), which is a quadratic, symmetric matrix. The cases j k (main diagonal) are covariances between one and the same variable, which are in fact the variances o-jj of the variables Xj for j = 1,..., m (note that in Chapter 1 variances were denoted as variance—covariance matrix (Figure 2.7). Matrix X refers to a data population of infinite size, and should not be confused with estimations of it as described in Section 2.3.2, for instance the sample covariance matrix C. 

The crystal radius thus has local validity in reference to a given crystal structure. This fact gives rise to a certain amount of confusion in current nomenclature, and what it is commonly referred to as crystal radius in the various tabulations is in fact a mean value, independent of the type of structure (see section 1.11.1). The crystal radius in the sense of Tosi (1964) is commonly defined as effective distribution radius (EDR). The example given in figure 1.7B shows radial electron density distribution curves for Mg, Ni, Co, Fe, and Mn on the M1 site in olivine (orthorhombic orthosilicate) and the corresponding EDR radii located by Fujino et al. (1981) on the electron density minima. 

However, the fact that they do have to be measured means that as you look in the literature for the pK of a particular compound you may find slightly different values can be presented. Do not let this confuse you. As mentioned above, relative, rather than specific, values are our main concern. 

In large trials and with events that are rare the OR and RR give very similar values. In fact we can see this in the trastuzumab example where the OR was 1.51 and the RR was 1.47. In smaller trials and with more common events, however, this wHl not be the case. Comparable values for the OR and the RR arise more frequently in cohort studies where generally the sample sizes are large and the events being investigated are often rare, and these measures tend to be used interchangeably. As a result there seems to be some confusion as to the distinction and it is my experience that the OR and RR are occasionally labelled incorrectly in clinical research papers, so take care. 

The confusion generated in the initial report185 on photoracemization of sulfoxides has recently been removed with the postulate that naphthalene singlet forms an excited complex with sulfoxides.186 Thus, despite the fact that the singlet state of 36 lies at 113 kcal, some 23 kcal above that of naphthalene, 36 quenches the fluorescence of this hydrocarbon with kes = 3.2 x 107Af -1 sec-1. From the dependence of the quantum yield of racemization on sulfoxide concentration (Eq. 34), a value of kes = 2.3 x 107Af-1 sec-1 was deduced. Since these values are the same within experimental error, it follows that the singlet state of naphthalene is responsible for photoracemization. 

Note that in Table III local (Sza), (S ), and (Sa Sb) expectation values for the [Fe2] cluster 1 are listed. As shown in Section V the local expressions for the Mayer and the Clark and Davidson decomposition schemes differ. Hence, different values for the (S ), e.g., for partitioning schemes. The same argument holds for the cross terms (Sa Sb), here (Spei Sk< 2)- The total spin expectation value (S2) is shown to illustrate that spin contamination is fairly low for most spin states. The reader should not be confused by the fact that summation over the local spin values at the iron centers (Spel), (Spe2>, and (Spei SFe2) does not yield the same value for Mayer and for Clark and Davidson data and that they do not sum up to (S2). The total spin expectation value (S2) is only obtained when summing all local spin values of all atoms of the [Fe2] cluster 1. 

The finite control-volume dimensions as illustrated in Fig. 2.13 may be a potential source of confusion. While the stress tensor represents the stress state at a point, it is only when the differential control volume is shrunk to vanishingly small dimensions that it represents a point. Nevertheless, the control volume is central to our understanding of how the stress acts on the fluid and in establishing sign conventions for the stress state. For example, consider the normal stress xrr, which can be seen on the r + dr face in the left-hand panel and on the r face in the right-hand panel. Both are labeled rrr, although their values are only equal when the control volume has shrunk to a point. Since the stress state varies continuously and smoothly throughout the flow, the stress state is in fact a little different at the centers of the six control-volume faces as illustrated in Fig. 2.13 where the... 

There appear to have been few advances in either medicine or toxicology between the time of Galen (ad 131-200) and Paracelsus (1493-1541). It was the latter who, despite frequent confusion between fact and mysticism, laid the groundwork for the later development of modem toxicology by recognizing the importance of the dose-response relationship. His famous statement— All substances are poisons there is none that is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy —succinctly summarizes that concept. His belief in the value of experimentation was also a break with earlier tradition. 

Another way of evaluating enzymatic activity is by comparing k2 values. This first-order rate constant reflects the capacity of the enzyme-substrate complex ES to form the product P. Confusingly, k2 is also known as the catalytic constant and is sometimes written as kcal. It is in fact the equivalent of the enzyme s TOF, since it defines the number of catalytic cycles the enzyme can undergo in one time unit. The k2 (or kcat) value is obtained from the initial reaction rate, and thus pertains to the rate at high substrate concentrations. Some enzymes are so fast and so selective that their k2/Km ratio approaches molecular diffusion rates (108—109 m s-1). This means that every substrate/enzyme collision is fruitful, and the reaction rate is limited only by how fast the substrate molecules diffuse to the enzyme. Such enzymes are called kinetically perfect enzymes [26],... 

Much of the confusion existing in replacement studies is caused by unamortized values. Some individuals feel that a positive unamortized value represents a loss which would be caused by making a replacement. This is not correct because the loss is a result of past mistakes, and the fact that the error was not apparent until a replacement was considered can have no bearing on the conditions existing at the present time. When making theoretical replacement studies, unamortized values must be considered as due to past errors, and these values are of no significance in the present decision as to whether or not a replacement should be made. 

The first source of confusion was the fact that minimal surfaces represent local minima in surface area under Plateau (or fixed boundary ) boundary conditions. The importance of this property with respect to cubic phases must be considered to be limited, however, because the surface area of the interfacial dividing surface — drawn between the hydrophilic and the hydrophobic regions of the microstucture - is given simply by the product of the number of surfactant molecules, times the average area per siufactant which is strongly fixed by the steric, van der Waals, and electrostatic interactions between surfactant molecules. Therefore this interfacial area does not in general seek a minimum but rather an optimum value, which does not tend to zero because of the electrostatic repulsion between surfactant head groups. Furthermore,... 

V is the volume of the unit cell and should not be confused with V(r) = V(xyz). From the fact that only the absolute square of F can be measured, the phase of the complex value of F is lost. This is the phase problem of crystallography, which found its solution by the introduction of the method of isomorphous replacement in the fifties... 

---