After a contribution to a previous thread I thought some more about what I actually wanted to say, so here is a much more succint version:
The average of any distribution or even worse of a dataset is not a sufficient description without a statement about the distribution.
So often research results are reported as a simple average with a standard deviation. The educated statistician will recognise these two numbers as the first two modes of a distribution. But these two modes completely describe a distribution if it is a normal distribution. Though the central limit theorem gives us justification to use it in quite a number of cases, in general we need to make sure that the dataset has no higher modes. The most obvious case is of a dataset dominated by a single binary random variable.
This statement then, that not all datasets are normally distributed, holds for any field, be it solid state physics, astrophysics, biochemistry, evolutionary biology, population ecology, welfare economics or psychology. To assume that any average together with a standard deviation derives from a normal distribution or even worse that there is no more information in the dataset or the underlying phenomenon is a grave scientific mistake.
first two modes
I think you mean moments, not modes (here and twice more in the same paragraph). I mention this for the benefit of anyone reading this and googling for more information.
has no higher [moments]
I'm guessing you mean "has higher moments matching those of the normal distribution" or something, but I don't see any advantage of this formulation over the simpler "is normally distributed" (or, since you're talking about a dataset rather than the random process that generated it, something like "is drawn from a normal ...
You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
And, while this is an accidental exception, future open threads should start on Mondays until further notice.