Re: Radon, smoking and LNT

[BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, John Jacobus wrote:



> So, from the statement

>

>  . . . Their

> > objections were on my methodology rather than to my

> > data. To me, they

> > were saying that I do not use the normal methodology

> > of epidemiology, which

> > I certainly have always recognized.

> >

>

> should I conclude that there is no way you will accept

> any critism of your work from epidemiologists?



	--I didn't say that. I was responding to the charge that the

listed epidemiologists claimed my data were invalid



  Isn't

> this equivalent to inventing your own scheme for

> solving thermodynamic problems, and then saying that

> other physicists are wrong when they object to the

> results?



	--Any physicist is welcome to invent a scheme for solving any

scientific problem providing he provides ample justification for it. Other

physicists are wrong if they object to the results unless they provide

reasons to question his justification. If his results do not agree with

results obtained by other methods, his justification must include

explaining the reason for this difference. If his results do not agree

with experiments, that would be ample reason for rejecting his method.

	I don't see why any of this applies to my work.



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

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/