If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!

["Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@NMIA.COM>]

Hi All,



At the present, there is an interesting dichotomy on two mailing lists, the

RADSAFE list and the RISKANAL list.  On both lists, there are discussions

that in the final analysis come down to the question of how we do science,

and I must say that the term "junk science" is the word that most often

comes to mind.

	On RISKANAL, the issues discussed are in a way more clearly defined than on

RADSAFE.  Here, we have Tony Cox and some others who are pleading with some

people (whose .contributions' I have filtered out after a while) to 1)

please state what they are really talking about, i.e., to clearly formulate

a testable hypothesis; 2) to state a measurement that is capable of either

supporting or falsifying the hypothesis (to use a Popperism); and 3) to make

a defensible comparison of model prediction and experiment which requires a

careful analysis of uncertainties for both values.  Poor Tony!  The verbal

abuse to which he was subjected has had two interesting consequences: 1) It

shows, without much direct expertise needed, just where the "right" side is;

and 2) It gave Jim Dukelow a chance to step in and, quite properly, remind

some people that wild accusations and ad hominem remarks have no place on a

mailing list that is supposed to deal with science and its application to

risk analysis.

	The discussion on RADSAFE, on the other hand, is an endless series of

variations on the Radon/Lung cancer theme.  I must say that I am slowly

getting tired of a scientifically totally aimless technical debate about

epidemiology in the presence of confounders etc.  I have now several times

asked the people involved to state clearly just what they are really doing

in a scientific sense.  So here I go again, and to make it easier I propose

the following alternatives 1) The aim is to determine the risk of lung

cancer for Americans that are exposed to various levels of Radon and its

daughters, taking into account that a third of these people smoke at various

levels; or 2) The aim is to determine the purely academic risk coefficient

for lung cancer due to an exposure to Radon and its daughters alone.  I do

not believe that all of the members of the discussions have stated clearly

what the scientific goal of their study is.

	So here I go, like Tony Cox, and ask: 1) Please state the scientific goal

of your inquiry, i.e., formulate the hypothesis that you intend to test; 2)

Furthermore please state how you are going to use the data available (Cohen

1995); and 3) Now how do you make the comparison between model prediction

and experiment.

	Bernie Cohen has from the beginning clearly stated what his aim is, and

that was to test the LNT model for Radon.  He did that with great success

and with a dramatically negative result.  To me, it looks like the

confounder arguments are nothing but desperate attempts to save the LNT.

These attempts are totally beside the point as long as Field, Lubin, Puskin

et al. do not state clearly what the intent of their research is.  So here I

go (again!):



ASSUMING THAT ALL YOUR REMARKS ARE TRUE AND ALLOWED FOR, WHAT IS THE RESULT

OF YOUR EFFORTS AND FOR WHAT CAN IT BE USED?



I have given the relevant references several times now.  If you need them,

write to me off list.

And now, I will climb down from my soap box and hope that you all have a

nice weekend,



Fritz





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

"This is the hour when democracy must justify

itself by capacity  for effective decision, or risk

destruction or desintegration. Europe is dotted

with the ruins of right decisions taken too late."



"America's Responsibility in the Current Crisis"

Manifesto of the Christian Realists. May, 1940.

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



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

Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.

Sigma Five Consulting:          Private:

P.O. Box 1709                   P.O. Box 437

Los Lunas, NM 87031             Tome', NM 87060

Tel.:      505-866-5193         Tel. 505-866-6976

Fax:       505-866-5197

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



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

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/