Thread: second hand smoke. the real scoop.

I'm not sure whether the ad hoc hypothesis presented in the article is pursued as pathological science or some kind of pseudoscience, but the confirmation bias exhibited is obvious and dangerous, I find the communal reinforcement quite disturbing. It's wishful thinking and people who support those ideas will go down in the annals of history as the pluderers of the earth and I'm sure be seen as evil and destructive as Hitler is to us.

X

Originally Posted by xman

I'm not sure whether the ad hoc hypothesis presented in the article is pursued as pathological science or some kind of pseudoscience, but the confirmation bias exhibited is obvious and dangerous, I find the communal reinforcement quite disturbing. It's wishful thinking and people who support those ideas will go down in the annals of history as the pluderers of the earth and I'm sure be seen as evil and destructive as Hitler is to us.

X

And how dare we question your belief that the earth is flat

Originally Posted by majurey

I believe that does actually happen. The Peer Review process is integral to any study being published, and the integrity of the Peers chosen to do the review effectively lends weight to the paper. If unkown peers or peers with questionable provenance are chosen, then the paper has less credibility. If well-respected peers or leaders in their fields are chosen to review, then the paper achieves much higher credibility.

It is actually a very effective mechanism for differentiating between good and worthless studies. It's why academic publishing houses still make shedloads of cash in the age where Wikipedias, Blogs and other similar unqualified publications are free resources.

If you need to know as close as possible to the truth about something, would you turn to a well-established reference work by, say, Oxford University Press or Harvard Press or would you just Google a blog or search a Wikipedia entry? Or, God forbid, read a newspaper reporter's attempt to reproduce the message accurately?

Words of wisdom indeed!

Ilija your comment:

"The bottom line is that scientific studies can be used to prove anything your heart desires -- to those uneducated and/or dumb enough to accept the "proof" at face." Is not true. Real sciene is not out to prove something your heart desires, it is out to test hypotheses. I think that you are confusing "real science", like the one that majurey reffered to in journals like Nature, Science, NEJM etc..., to what you call "science or scientific studies" but are actually an attempt to manipulate people into buying a product or believing in your opinions.

Originally Posted by JMS

And how dare we question your belief that the earth is flat

Don't be silly.

I've been involved as a statistician on many medical, epidemiological, and environmental science research projects.

It's true that (some) experiements are designed to test hypotheses - the hypotheses are set up on such a way that nothing can be *proven* as such; rather the weight of evidence supports a certain idea. Basically, whenever statistics are used, you're dealing with probability - things can be said to be highly probable, but never certain, IMHO.

The peer review thing is a funny beast. Nowadays most sciences utilise statistics in some way - mainly in the important area of drawing conclusions from the data collected. In my experience, however, not many medical or environmental science journals keep statisticians on their editorial boards or use them as reviewers (although there are some exceptions). Generally peer - reviewed articles are great on the science, and not so great on the statistics used to draw those all important conclusions for use in public policy decisions etc. Big problem, IMHO.

As an example, there was a draft paper floating around in the late '90s/early '00s purporting that smoking was *protective* against Alzheimer's disease - if you smoked you were less likely to develop Alzheimers. Turns out they forgot to add "age" to their analysis...

Man-made global warming? Show me enough data so that I can place the current warming in an historical context, can account for seasonal fluctuations etc. and I'll let you know. Given global warming and cooling events take place on a large (1000's years) time scale, I doubt there'll ever be enough data for a statistician to be happy about making *that* call.

However, it's my belief that some things don't need data - in some ways proving man is responsible for warmiing events is a red-herring. There are climate problems now: how we deal with them is important, not who made them (although knowing how they happened can help deal with how to fix them). Better to assume the worst and act than sit around arguing over who's to blame... (Although, having said that, it's my opinion that our planet is a self-correcting system. Humans may make the planet uninhabitable for themselves, but the planet will recover and support new life given enough time - just an opinion though...)

Second hand smoke? There's been good studies, there's been bad studies In the end it's all just probabilities and how you choose to interpret them. I'm a smoker - I try not to impose my habit/addiction on others, especially in public. What I do in my own home is my business.

James.

Jimbo, you are my hero!!

Yes Mark, James is the man , IMHO (now in my dishonest opinion I don't like the guy)

Isn't it fair to say that there are all types of buggers that can get you in the end. Maybe the best thing to do is to realize we don't live in a perfect world and use some common sense and general intelligence. The idea is to live in a world that is worth living in --- anxiety, depression, etc can kill you just as easy as the big bugaboos that make the news. I'll take the good with the bad ---but I want to want to live and I will enjoy a cigarette, a beer, etc now and then ---

I don't believe there is any true separation of politics and science and that can surely be said for smoking and global warming. I think when populations reach a certain level of prosperity, then individuals (usually the most privileged) start feeling a sense of guilt, self hatred, and by some sick perversion start wanting doom and predict it like wise. You see it in certain religions as well (you can add the church of global warming to the list) and I think it is just built into the human psyche --- .

Opinions are like assholes when it comes to stuff like this but being a big butt in general that's never stopped me. Global changes were occurring before men had a pot to pee in and millions of species have gone by the way side because of it. A million years from now Louisiana will be replaced by a major mountain range --- there use to be a gigantic ocean in the arid western U.S. -- so what do you do.?
Maybe try to eliminate any human causes of climate change but how can you be sure? Weather men can't predict the next hurricane season or even weather a few months from now --- how can you know for sure that fractional changes of temperature are caused by human involvement? You can try to rely on scientific objectivity but I don't know if that exists -- it has all become politics.

Justin

Oh,

* every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
* the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15
* every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
* the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25
* every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956
* every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917

And then there's all this. Don't take my word for it. Please read the information in the link provided in this post and use your own critical thinking skills. It is a complex issue and as such cannot be written off with simple answers. Second hand smoke is the same.

I apologise Mr. Opinion, but I'm afraid you'll have to ride in the back seat, sir. This chair is reserved for facts.

X

Well there isn't much anyone can say to counter your argument Jimbo: "In the end it's all just probabilities and how you choose to interpret them".
Of course it is but IMHO I'd rather not jump in front of a car or play Russian Roulette and hope that the odds play out in my favour...

You pick on one draft paper in late 90's/early 00's, was it published? or used to make some policy? and how many studies have been published since? are they all bad?? I agree there are bad studies/papers out there but there are also some good ones, don't you think?

Sure you can argue both for and against man made global warming (or any issue for that matter) using stats, and stats are just stats and never proof. But you can't honestly believe that man has played no part in it. What about deforestation, or dwindling fish stocks or global pollution? Are those all contrived too?
I completely agree that nature and earth will bounce back, but I just have an issue with people who write it off and refuse to try and change. I mean, why keep testing our luck if we can do something about it?

As far as Justin's comment "it has all become politics". That all depends where you are getting your info from. Sure there are some biased studies both for and against an argument like man-made global warming but most of the political spin comes into play after the study was published, mainly in the media or the parliament when people try to spin the findings to suit them.

I am not arguing that the world will end due to 'global warming' or that smoking/being exposed to second hand smoke will absolutely kill you (I too smoke a pipe several times a year), but to argue that since we don't have absolute proof we don't have to believe it or try to change it (of course, only when it is convenient for us) seems a little insincere.