I find the DRF presentation of this information interesting. Especially compared to what other press is writing about it.
The DRF headline is: "Study challenges injury claims". That makes the reader think something measured and valid was found in the study, and was presented today, right?
And the opening paragraph says:
Quote:
|
Data collected over the last six months of 2007 through a uniform injury reporting system has not shown any significant difference in the rates of fatal injuries sustained by horses running on synthetic or dirt surfaces, according to the veterinarian who has compiled the reports
|
Eureka! There is it! The measured data shows there is no significant difference!
Um, but wait. That isn't exactly true. Not in the scientific sense.
As written in the second paragraph, which has the researcher herself deliberately trying to negate that exact premature rush to assumption:
Quote:
|
Dr. Mary Scollay, the Florida state veterinarian, cautioned that the data did not represent a statistically significant set,
|
Dang. In other words, I cannot yet say with certainly that there is or is not a definitive difference in injury rates, as
there isn't a significant enough amount of data yet collected.
The DRF writer saw this, too, as he then immediately makes the editorial comment:
Quote:
|
But Scollay's data at least introduces questions regarding the validity of the claim ....
|
Yes. And those questions are what the study is for, and what the data will tell us
when enough is collected to be definitive.
But the headline and first paragraph sure don't imply that more reserved and accurate assessment of the facts to date, do they?
