Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
I was typing the reply you are referring to while you posted the one about "proof". You gotta at least give me chance to respond before you attack again. Hell, I still haven't read your previous post about "proof".
I am stating my case, in my own way, in a way that makes sense to me. We have discussed that in the past.
If I can't operate up to your standards, then I apologize, but I do what I can and am not really here to please anybody.
And if I contradict myself, just point it out nicely and I will respond--I usually do. I am human, just like all of us and prone to mistakes--at least I admit them when I make them here....my wife can't even get me to do that.
And if "scientific experimentation" means excluding information you don't like, than I want none of it.
Now, I am going to back and read the post you first wrote.....
|
KMA,
None of my last points were even considering my post about "proof." That was simply for your own edification if you ever have the misfortune and displeasure of having to pass a stats class (we all feel that way, as far as a know, "passing" a stats class is not directed at your abilities--it's directed at statistical analyses and the requirement that all grads have to go through it so that, well to be honest, so that we can have these kinds of discussions with each other and critically evaluate one another's work).
My points were really about your repetition of the notion that simply because a study cites an earlier study, flawed or not, that the findings of the latter study are impugned. If the researchers wanted to do a follow-up study, even if they disagreed with the findings, they would have to cite the first study. Even if you found a study straight off the back porch of a tobacco sponsored scientist--as in on the payroll commissioned with the sole purpose of rebutting the 1992 study, guess what? the first thing cited on the references would be the study.
It's called a lit review and you have to consider all the previous studies in it and say what you think is wrong and what you think is right and what you are going to add to the body of scientific knowledge. It doesn't mean you use their data. You still start from your own zero point and find data and analyse it. The difference would be a review or a meta-analysis, which is a broad review of all the studies out in the field, instead of producing their own lab level data.
and then my frustration was exacerbated by you repeating that you can't understand how people sitting at home and exposed to intervals of one or a few smokers per day would be less dangerous than people who are experiencing prolonged exposure in their work environment or, before the bans went into place, lots of smokers in public at one time.