Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
You'll have to give me some time on this, but sure. We are talking about research and studies conducted way before the internet (If I remember correctly, the original smoking studies were conducted in the 50's and 60's), so I don't know how much I will find online.
We need to set limits, though....no articles, just studies.
There is one potential fatal flaw here though: I can't concede to a research study that uses the 1992-1993 EPA study as a reference. No matter how hard I would try, I cannot get past the flaws in that study to see anything that uses it as a reference objectively.
It would be the same if I showed you a study that says SHS is safe, and the study happens to be conducted by a scientist employed by RJ Reynolds or Philip Morris--you wouldn't accept that either--the core flaw (in this case, conflict of interest) would prejudice you to any of the results, regardless of whether they are true or not.
Sorry, but I am just being honest about it upfront.
New thread? or in here?
Offline or online?
|
You are making a critical assumption about what either of us would accept--an assumption that is simply not true. Neither of us will discredit a study based on its authors, but assess it on its methodology. Find a study by a scientist employed or funded by the tobacco industry and that is fair game to critique, as well.
You never answered me why you think that referencing a study impugns the research of another study. Research does not necessarily (although sometimes it does, but you seem to think that it always does) use the findings of an ealier study and then build on it in the sense you imply. A study might be referenced to say, look this one was faulty, this one was correct, or look we corroberated its findings. Anytime someone or something is mentioned, it has to be referenced. That's all it means--it doesn't mean the later findings are in any way dependent on the earlier research. That's the meaning of independent studies.
Your requirement that no study include the one you find so unpalatable (why? I have to read your whole analysis of it, are you certain that the study was faulty on scientific grounds or legal grounds? -- the courts haven't until recently even given a shit about scientific research, and judges are not trained to make judgements about methodology--just legal judgements. The judge's assessment shouldn't be interpreted to mean the scientific research was faulty, just on what you've posed so far. You could be ripping the quotes you are supplying wildly out of context. For example, if the judge is arguing that the organization made judgements before the research was in, that is a legal concern, but that doesn't impugn the research that was done--and so far, the quotes only discuss the impropriety of making assessments before the research was conducted--not that the research itself was wrong)...but anyway, your requirement is going to be almost, if not absolutely, impossible to meet. All studies are going to reference all the earlier studies because they are required to account for them--even if they find contradictory results. Just because a study lists something in its references doesn't mean it hinges its validity on the ealier study's validity. Even if it is first on the list doesn't mean it is a "primary" reference--it just means it was mentioned first in the paper.
I already explained this to you in an earlier post, but you didn't respond. Perhaps you didn't see that post, because I had some questions in it for you.