Re: Radon and lung cancer

[Holloway3 <Holloway3@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-03-02 13:59:14 EST, you write:

<< "Burden of proof" suggests that one explanation is "accepted" or at least
 preferred.  Others must overcome that preferrence >>

      I  only meant to suggest that a theory based on empirical evidence (such
as Cohen's papers) is to be preferred and therefore accepted, at least
tentatively, over a conflicting viewpoint that is not based on data.  If I had
been on the O.J. Simpson jury, and if the DNA evidence placed him at the scene
of the crime, the defense would have had to work very hard to show why that
evidence was flawed,  to convince me that O.J. was innocent.  They would have
had a barrier or burden to overcome on that issue.  Maybe they could do it,
and maybe not.  Maybe you want to wait until all the evidence is in before
deciding the relationship between radon and lung cancer.  That's o.k. too, but
I would say that the ball is not on Cohen's side of the court on this issue.
The others need to hit it back pretty hard with the results of a case control
study, if they are to show that there IS a positive correlation between low
doses of radon and lung cancer.