Re: Radon and lung cancer

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

Dr. Cohen said, in part:

>        -It is a basic principle of "The Scientific Method" that if data
>exist that cannot be plausibly explained by the theory, the theory fails.
>If you don't agree with this statement, please say so, and I will expound
>further.

The Scientific Method does not require that every result be embraced, only
those results that have been replicated and confirmed with several
techniques.  There are lots of anomalous results in science that are
neither refuted nor embraced.  I will give one example from physics, since
Dr. Cohen has worked in that arena with some distinction.

In the 70's Bill Fairbank (Stanford) detected fractional charges on small
superconducting niobium spheres.  To my knowledge, no one has ever
explained his results, yet physicists universally hold to charge
quantization and absolute confinement of quarks.  I would ask Dr. Cohen
whether he disagrees with this statement and whether The Scientific Method
has been abridged.  I would also ask for an example (just one) where any
accepted physical law that has been changed on the basis on one,
unconfirmed study.  If The Scientific Method is at stake, show us the history.

Regards,

Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu