Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
I think I am abusing my terms.
I am referring to a study where there isn't an intended result.
In other words, we want to study second-hand smoke, not study to see the dangers of second-hand smoke--the later has an obvious bias going into it.
|
Well, the problem, and I admit it is a problem, is that you aren't going to get someone to study the effects of secondhand smoke just out of curiosity. Science costs, and it's going to be funded by either the NIH(which is likely against smoking) or the tobacco companies(and we know how they feel).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
But, I think you knew what I meant even if I am linguistically-challanged.
What about my comments regarding using a proven, bogus study as the very first reference.
|
I did know what you meant. I wasn't trying to play gotcha, just correcting your terminology. As long as we are going to discuss scientific studies and your criteria for what would be an acceptable study for you to admit secondhand smoke was bad, I want to be clear about what you want to see. As for the study being bogus, I don't know. I will admit I just loaded a Google search with ["second-hand smoke" "significant cause" "lung heart disease"] and found that paper as a reference in the first five results. I didn't even read beyond the first few pages or bother to look at the studies; I was just throwing up the first thing I found that matched your criteria because I supected you would find fault with whatever I found and so I wasn't going to commit a lot of resources to it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Anyhow, my egg comment isn't to disprove anything scientific, it is just to show that science isn't the be all and end all of society. Scientists can put out bogus information just as easily as I can. Plus, it is very easy to make a study prove what you want it to prove--it just depends on how you handle your "victims".
|
This is my point. You'll accept science as long as it says what you want, but if it goes against you, you can always duck back behind "science isn't always right" or "it's easy to make science say what you want." If we are going to go with that conclusion then the whole argument becomes even more meaningless than it already was, because I will never be able to give you anything that you can't dodge in one of the above ways. I think at this point we have both spent enough time going round and round, but if you want to take a fresh approach I am all for it; I'm not trying to get the last word, just wondering if we have anything left to gain.