Re: Radon, smoking and LNT

[BERNARD, L, COHEN]

BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU> wrote:

    --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.



On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, John Jacobus wrote:



> So, only a physicist can adequately review and

> criticize your epidemiological work?



	--I was responding in a discussion about how physicists operate.

To me, it is obviously the logical way to operate and I assumed that all

scientists operate that way, but recent experience on RADSAFE and with Ken

Mossman have shown me that such an assumption is wrong. There are those

who feel that if things are not done their way, the work is wrong. For

them to reject a novel approach to a scientific problem, it is not

necessary to show that the justification offered is faulty, but only that

it is not the way they do things.



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

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/