Re: ?Ecological Fallacy

[gr_cicotte@ccmail.pnl.gov]

          That's an interesting analogy, but it doesn't fully apply, in my 
          opinion.  The issue as stated, while it provides an indication 
          that further study would be indicated, and may even be enough 
          for the development of a theory, does not contain proof that the 
          lack of iodine is the causal factor.  We happen to know it is, 
          but we know because we've done experiments to determine the 
          facts, rather than depending on just the effect and a single 
          common factor among multiple possibilities.
          
          V/R
          George R. Cicotte
          Research Engineer
          HEALTH PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
          Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: ?Ecological Fallacy
Author:  HWADE@aol.com at -SMTPlink
Date:    8/10/95 5:53 AM


Daniel Strom, Ph.D., states that Cohen's work is subject to the "ecologic 
fallacy", because it meets this definition, which he quotes:
>The ecologic fallacy is "An error in interpreting associations >between 
ecologic indices.  It is committed by mistakenly >assuming that, because the 
majority of a group has a >characteristic, the characteristic is related to a 
health state >common in the group" (Slome C, Brogan DR, Eyres SJ, Lednar >W.
 Basic Epidemiological Methods and Biostatistics - A >Workbook. Boston: Jones
and Bartless, 1986, Chapter 9 & p. >306).
          
I suppose another example of the ecologic fallacy is the relation between 
iodine and goiter.
          
We all know that living in an area with a lack of iodine in soil (majority of 
a group has this characteristic) causes an greater incidence of goiter ( a 
health state common to the group).