more or less :: explanations for certain observations
6 Jan
|
The authors of the study acknowledge that because of its cross-sectional nature and these other issues, this study is not sufficient to draw a causal conclusion. They also acknowledge that there is no known biologic mechanism by which post-natal ETS exposure could lead to neurologic damage. Nevertheless, this acknowledgment does not appear to stop the authors from drawing such a causal conclusion anyway
The anti-tobacco crowd has long outlived its welcome. Fanatics have spoiled what should be a responsible discussion on public health policy by winning the argument and sparing no expense to rub it in. The problem is that many scientists and doctors of otherwise distinguished credentials have become biased by their own perceptions and ignorance of common logical fallacies in the statements, and studies, they participate in.
Omaha’s MOTAC, The American Lung Foundation, the American Cancer Society, Americans for Non-Smokers Rights – have all made dubious claims in the media using flawed studies, slanted data and ignorance predation.
29 Dec
LA Times runs an article where David Axelrod, an Obama advisor states:
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” David Axelrod, a senior advisor to Obama, said, “We have to act. Every economist from left to right agrees that we have to do something big in terms of job creation, but we want to do it in a way that will leave a lasting footprint.”
I bet I can think of at least two economists who disagree with Axelrod’s assumption. And there are a host of other economists who disagree, whether they view the Austrian tradition in a positive/negative light.
The problem here is that our new administration is posturing this as a Global Warming-type “scientific consensus” issue that has already been used and beat into the ground. I’m sure Axelrod will start backpedaling and trying to reign in the comment with something to the effect of “the best economists” or the “brightest economists” to properly qualify the statement. Unfortunately, those definitions would be at the sole discretion of Axelrod and only as qualified as Axelrod is to determine who is the best and brightest.
The problem is that we don’t turn to scientific study to determine what the future is. We infer from the data that we have in an attempt to predict, with some reasonable probability, of future events. There is a significant difference. Prediction carries the inherent possibility of chance – the product or outcome of the unexpected is a distinct probability.
With this in mind, an economist’s opinion is only that – the opinion of the scientist. To assume an economist can predict the future with any certainty, which Axelrod appears willing to assume through the “consensus” opinion, is nothing short of malarky. If you believe that an economist knows the future any better than a carnival fortune teller, you are sadly mistaken.
Sphere: Related Content19 Jul
Skulls confirm we’re all out of Africa
Unfortunately, God could not be reached for comment.