Re: Reward

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 Radiationhealth@aol.com wrote:

> Dr. Cohen,
> 
> Checking the archives, you stated on July 19, 1998 that:
> 
> "I will evaluate the proposal and attempt to show that it is highly
> implausible as an explanation of the discrepancy. If I fail to do this in
> my own judgement, I will award the proposer $2500 and publish a
> concession. If the proposer does not agree that I have shown his proposal
> to be highly implausible , I will award him $1000 provided we publish a
> joint paper containing his proposal and my demonstration, and explaining
> both of our positions on plausibility."
> 
> Obviously, the proposers Lubin and (Smith and others) did not agree and both 
> your responses and theirs were published together in the Health Physics 
> Journal.  In fact, the articles were published as Forum articles. I just read 
> the rejoinders and follow-up letters from Lubin and (Fields and others) last 
> evening.   According to your statement above, it would be my view that they 
> should surely receive at least the $1,000 reward.  If you do not plan to 
> follow the rules you established, it is likely no one will respond to your 
> more recent reward offers.

	--We did not publish a joint paper, and they never suggested that 
we do so. They did not claim that my analyses failed to demonstrate that
their proposed explanations for our discrepancy were very highly
implausible. In fact, their rejoinders and follow-up letters ignored my
analyses and went on to other comments. I was asking for a serious dialog
with both sides arguing over the same issue. What came out was them
presenting a suggestion, me analyzing the suggestion and showing that it
was unsuccessful, and them not questioning my analysis or its conclusions.
That is not a dialog. They never suggested that they should receive the
reward.
	If you (or they) believe that my analyses did not show that their
suggestions fail to explain our discrepancy, you (or they) should state
this and provide an explanation for your viewpoint. Is it asking too much
to request a dialog on a scientific question -- Is their suggestion
plausible? Why not settle one question at a time? 
	We can start here. Tell me specifically one suggestion you refer
to that can explain our discrepancy, and why you do not agree that my
analysis  showed  that it is highly implausible. Maybe we can settle
at least one issue of your choosing.
	If your problem is in not understanding my previous offer or in
claiming that it was ambiguous, you surely cannot claim that my new offer
is ambiguous.  
 
> 
> I also remember you making reward offers of a million dollars at meetings at 
> least 10 years ago challenging people to show that your laboratory QA for 
> your radon gas measurments in your laboratory were inadequate.  Does memory 
> serve me correctly?  Did anyone ever challenge you on that?

	--I have no memory of that, and it is too loose a statement to be
meaningful. Definitions of "inadequate" are not very definite. Certainly
no one ever challenged me on that. I worked hard  on our quality control
program, and I was always trying to improve it but I never believed that
it was perfect.

> 
> Jeff Klugh
> radiationhealth@aol.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html