Re: Radon and lung cancer

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

In a recent post, someone said the following:

<snip>It seems to me that the burden of proof shifts to his critics to
experimentally show how his conclusions are flawed, rather than just assert
that confounding factors may be involved or to assert that somehow radon
concentrations by county are not a good proxy for average actual dose.<snip>

Scientific inquiry is not based on "burden of proof" or similar concepts
involved in winning arguements.  The goal is to continually examine the
evidence to uncover how the world works.  There is not vote, no winner or
loser.  Each person draws his own conclusion.  Consensus is reached by
persuasion and the weight of the evidence, not procedural rules (e.g.
burden of proof).  This does not argue against Dr. Cohen's conclusions.
Instead, it speaks against the tendancy to engage in polemics rather than
investigation.

Regards,
Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu