To: SheLion
Anti-smokers engage in some pretty amazing statistical homeopathy. Using proper statistical methods, a person who gets lung cancer having been exposed to only a trivial amount of secondhand smoke should be regarded as a data point against the proposition that secondhand smoke is significantly harmful, in that it shows that not all cases of lung cancer are attributable to SHS. To a statistical homeopathist, however, any case of cancer by anyone with any exposure whatsoever to SHS proves that SHS is dangerous. The smaller the exposure (and thus, to a proper statistician, the more tenuous the causal relationship) the stronger the proof.
6 posted on
06/28/2006 11:00:29 PM PDT by
supercat
(Sony delenda est.)
To: supercat
>>Using proper statistical methods, a person who gets lung cancer having been exposed to only a trivial amount of secondhand smoke should be regarded as a data point against the proposition that secondhand smoke is significantly harmful, in that it shows that not all cases of lung cancer are attributable to SHS. To a statistical homeopathist, however, any case of cancer by anyone with any exposure whatsoever to SHS proves that SHS is dangerous.<<
Both of the approaches are incorrect.
22 posted on
06/29/2006 12:14:38 AM PDT by
gondramB
(Unity of freedom has never relied upon uniformity of opinion.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson