This is the sad fact of life -- we make up what we want to believe and find justifications for it later.
I was a math student in undergrad. Mathematicians think differently about the world. I am always amazed at the "studies" we generate, which have been "proven" by statistics. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is a primary rule in statistics that policy makers do not want you to know. It is easy to see how it is misapplied. Children with bigger feet read better than children with smaller feet. This is unassailable. It is true as writ by God's hand across the heavens. Why? Children with bigger feet are older, and for statistical purposes the ur-"older child" reads better than the ur-"younger child." We do this all the time with "obesity," but never ask who is obese or what makes them obese. While I could create a study that declares obese people are more likely to be involved in domestic abuse, the hidden variable may be poverty or social class.
Consider smoking. Historically, more people in the western U.S. smoked than people in the east. They were also closer to above ground nuclear testing while it was being done. Now, we don't really do as many cancer correlational studies, we just look for pathways that introduce carcinogens. Fine, in theory that is good, but nearly anything could be found to be a carcinogen -- especially in cancer prone lab rats. Hell, your body PRODUCES carcinogens. The other truth is that cells go cancerous everyday. Every diagnosed cancer is the product of two things -- a cancerous cell and an immune system that didn't respond quickly.
Anyway, I pronounce you guilty. You posted a study that confirmed what you already believed. I'm not saying your wrong to believe it, I'm just saying that a thin veil lies between fact and propaganda.
Hell, for my dime, I don't think smoking causes cancer. I think it causes emphysema, but not cancer.
Statistics are always propoganda if observed by anything less than a skeptical mind. I did have the good grace to post a fairly neutral article though.
I'm not saying you're wrong to post it. I used to get excited about similar articles, but if there is anything the recent war made clear to me it was that we tend to have our minds made up and we spend A LOT of time trying to justify our ideas.
Humorous aside -- my Father-In-Law is a "Mathematician-Of-Note" and was asked about his opinions in an attempt to ban public smoking at a state level. He does not smoke, but upon reviewing the studies he told the researcher that the best thing one could do is smoke. Apparently, they tried to tell him in one study that cancer occured in smokers at rate A and in non-smokers at rate B. In another study, 2nd hand smokers were very loosely defined and getting cancer at rate C, higher than rate A. Needless to say, he was not called to the stand.
I was a math student in undergrad. Mathematicians think differently about the world. I am always amazed at the "studies" we generate, which have been "proven" by statistics. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is a primary rule in statistics that policy makers do not want you to know. It is easy to see how it is misapplied. Children with bigger feet read better than children with smaller feet. This is unassailable. It is true as writ by God's hand across the heavens. Why? Children with bigger feet are older, and for statistical purposes the ur-"older child" reads better than the ur-"younger child." We do this all the time with "obesity," but never ask who is obese or what makes them obese. While I could create a study that declares obese people are more likely to be involved in domestic abuse, the hidden variable may be poverty or social class.
Consider smoking. Historically, more people in the western U.S. smoked than people in the east. They were also closer to above ground nuclear testing while it was being done. Now, we don't really do as many cancer correlational studies, we just look for pathways that introduce carcinogens. Fine, in theory that is good, but nearly anything could be found to be a carcinogen -- especially in cancer prone lab rats. Hell, your body PRODUCES carcinogens. The other truth is that cells go cancerous everyday. Every diagnosed cancer is the product of two things -- a cancerous cell and an immune system that didn't respond quickly.
Anyway, I pronounce you guilty. You posted a study that confirmed what you already believed. I'm not saying your wrong to believe it, I'm just saying that a thin veil lies between fact and propaganda.
Hell, for my dime, I don't think smoking causes cancer. I think it causes emphysema, but not cancer.
Reply
Reply
Humorous aside -- my Father-In-Law is a "Mathematician-Of-Note" and was asked about his opinions in an attempt to ban public smoking at a state level. He does not smoke, but upon reviewing the studies he told the researcher that the best thing one could do is smoke. Apparently, they tried to tell him in one study that cancer occured in smokers at rate A and in non-smokers at rate B. In another study, 2nd hand smokers were very loosely defined and getting cancer at rate C, higher than rate A. Needless to say, he was not called to the stand.
Reply
Leave a comment