RE: Objectivity

[e <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Jacobus, John (OD/ORS) wrote:



> Dr. Cohen,

> I thought such publications already existed?  For example:

>

> Brian J. Smith, R. William Field, and Charles F. Lynch

>

> Title: Residential 222Rn Exposure and Lung Cancer: Testing the Linear

> No-Threshold Theory with Ecologic Data

>

> Health Physics, 75(1):11-17; 1998

k

	--My reward offers have always been for a specific suggestions,

not for generalized ideas. If a generalized idea is valid, it is

always easy to come up with a specific suggestion based on it. But there

is still a further requirement that the suggestion must not be completely

implausible.

	For example, in response to the generalized proof that cross level

bias can invalidate any ecological study, I have proposed explanations

that would invalidate my study, but they were always completely

implausible. No one else has proposed a specific example of cross level

bias that would invalidate my study. For years I have been urgently

inviting someone to do so.

	There have been papers offering specific suggestions, but I have

always shown that it was very highly implausible for them to drastically

change my results. These papers would have won my reward under present

ground rules just by having been accepted for publication, but that ground

rule was made only a year ot two ago.





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/