Re: "Scientific Research Results"
- From: Ngo Dinh Diem <sir_georgio@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:49:45 -0700
On Sep 15, 3:01 pm, Steven Fowler <scfowler1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:32 pm, Jim Beard <jim.be...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All of us are familiar with the claims of "scientific proof"
(usually based on statistics) that smoking is hazardous to your
health, and Disraeli's dictum that there are three classes of
lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
A recent column in The Wall Street Journal suggests the problem
may not be unique to tobacco-related matters (though the zealotry
evident in branishing the "findings" is more evident, IMNSHO).
"We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar John
Ioannidis, scientists make more than their fair share. By his
calculations, most published research findings are wrong."
http://online.wsj.com/article/science_journal.html?mod=djemtct
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
I tend to agree. I teach and direct research by high school
students. First, I teach that science never, never, never proves
anything. Science can only disprove. I do not let them use the word
"prove".
Second, I emphasize that what we believe to be "truth" today will only
be laughed at 200 years from now. We discuss what scientific theories
are (no they're not best guesses like creationists think) and how they
can be reinforced, tweaked, or abandoned through experimentation.
Last, we learn about not over-stating conclusions.
I also would like to point out that most readers of a journal like
"Science" are innately skeptical just like their reviewers. They know
the experiments need repetition. The look back for corrections. It's
partisans and journalists that do neither. Like I have tried to teach
Tim D.: Don't get your science from journalists who are reporting what
the research says. Read the paper for yourself. Read the authors'
conclusion and critically analyze it.
On a side note, our county sent a list of chemicals that science
departments should purge from their supplies, one was nicotine. They
listed it under poisons and claimed it was an "extremely dangerous".
I had to laugh.
You are all correct, smoking is in fact beneficial to one's health! It
in no way harms or puts one at any increased risk of harm, doctors
ought to once again prescribe smoking for the curing of ailments and
everyone across the world should take up smoking in some form to
enhance their standards of living as part of a well-balanced
lifestyle. Tomorrow I am going to stand outside a local primary school
to hand out freshly made cigarettes, along with a few tubs of snuff,
cigars, pipes and tobacco and a few sticks of Copenhagen for those
with a sweet tooth-we all know how much kiddies like lollies. The
earlier young people can benefit from the wonders of vitamin N and
tobacco smoke in general the stronger and healthier they will be
tomorrow. Regards
Peter.
.
- References:
- "Scientific Research Results"
- From: Jim Beard
- Re: "Scientific Research Results"
- From: Steven Fowler
- "Scientific Research Results"
- Prev by Date: Re: Where's Ian?
- Next by Date: Re: Friday PM Curl Up for You???
- Previous by thread: Re: "Scientific Research Results"
- Next by thread: Re: "Scientific Research Results"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
