I have given the crux of what I wanted to say about the inhalation of peanuts. It showed that accepted explanations are not always explanations as such and that one must continue to think critically for oneself. Even about what is an accepted opinion.
The erroneous explanation is something else that has appeared in textbooks and was accepted uncritically. I read it in the same book that gave the incorrect description of what happens to the thyroid cornu during strangulation. (See: Prof Simpson and Textbook Strangulation.)
There is one further brief comment to add. That is about writing style. The authors needed to write their paper in a style that suited the requirements of an academic journal.
I first read about this study in New Scientist, a popular science magazine. It caters for a broad readership and must have an appropriate style. It was some years before I read the original paper. The contrast in writing styles was striking. There was a considerable difference between the academic journal and popular magazine writing styles. A description of the same study can have a very different feel.
I was excited by the New Scientist article. It was brief and to the point and written in a style that was easy to read. The study fascinated me. I referred to it in my lectures for many years after. The dryness of the original academic paper did not enthuse me. The study did not fascinate me when described that way. That was due to no fault of the writers. They had to follow the accepted writing style. Academic journals often prescribe what these should be.
Thousands of books are read every day for pleasure or interest. Academics are no exception. They do not confine their reading to academic literature alone. I have known many academics to be voracious readers of non-academic writing. Their reading is for pleasure.
There is little or no pleasure associated with reading academic papers. I do not recall hearing a colleague get excited about something read in an academic paper. I have heard plenty of criticisms. I have also heard - and experienced - how difficult it can be to write in the required style. The academic style of writing is neither simple nor is it natural. Journal editors sometimes comment on how laborious editing can be.
There is perhaps only one thing pleasurable about academic papers. That is seeing one’s name in print. However, that is only a transitory pleasure. It soon passes. Published works soon recede into the past. Only the most recent work gets read. Older works are not. The paper by Lowe and Ross Russell demonstrates this. The year 1984 was a long time ago. Were it read, the erroneous explanation of why peanuts find their way into the right main bronchus might be no more.
