Re: Radon and lung cancer

["Raymond A Hoover"<TOBEOR@inel.gov>]

Wasn't it Enrico Fermi who once said something to the effect that 'no new
scientific idea ever wins acceptance based on the merits of the evidence,
but gains acceptance simple because its critics die off?'




rah@america.net on 03/02/98 10:03:07 AM

Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu


To:   radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
cc:    (bcc: Raymond A Hoover/TOBEOR/LMITCO/INEEL/US)
Subject:  Re: Radon and lung cancer




Is this a new PC version of science? If "persuasion" and "not procedural
rules" determine the product of science, it appears that the approach of
Caldicotte et al are right on target!
Hve we not lapsed into a consideration of semantics, however, when we say
that "burden of proof" is significantly different from "weight of the
evidence"?
Bob Hearn
rah@america.net
At 10:42 AM 3/2/98 -0600, David Scherer wrote:
>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
>
>