Re: Radon and lung cancer

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

	Erroneous data is a plausible explanation in the case you mention.
If someone can offer a plausible suggestion for  how all three sets of  
data I use, our own, EPA's, and data collected by various states, can be
erroneous, and still agree with one another, that would be sufficient.  
	

Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu


On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, David Scherer wrote:

> 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
>