Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the second hand smoke story was interesting enough--just out of curiousity, when a conservative person thinks of "the environmental movement" where exactly does the epa fit into the picture?
|
I wouldn't know.
My post about the EPA was made in response to a statement someone made earlier about the EPA. I thought the context was obvious since I quoted the person in my post. For the record, I never claimed that ETS had NO health consequences; I was only describing the origin of Crichton’s statement about the EPA.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
while the information was presented in response to a critique of crichton's thing, was it presented to make a more general claim as well?
|
You're free to infer whatever you wish from my post - that doesn't make it true. If one were to extrapolate an image of my personal politics from the nature of these posts that person would probably be wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the presentation read as though it was--but there seems no basis for claiming that it is anything but anecdotal--and anecdotes while are often nice (dont you think?), that's all they are....usually, folk like to present their stories as "telling anecdotes", kinds of allegories or as something that indicates or points to matters of broader importance. but that is often little more than an aesthetic matter (your politics might lead you to prefer to think that story is indicative of something systematic so that you dont have to demonstrate anything of the sort--this sort of preference is alot like the question of which kind of coffee you prefer or what colors socks you like)
or vanity (it is your story after all---i of course am not exempt from either of these)....but these are not arguments, they are simply preferences.
|
The Congressional Research Service DID conduct this review in 1995 and DID dismiss the findings of the 1993 EPA report as stated. In 1998 the statements of Judge Osteen regarding the quality of the EPA report were made as stated.
Perhaps you ought to challenge me on either the veracity of my facts or by providing an independent review that actually substantiates the EPA’s findings. Only then might your claim have merit. To say that I’m just being selective about my data without providing references of your own only suggests that you resist an honest consideration of views that contradict your personal beliefs.
Of course I could be wrong. In which case I would welcome the opportunity for enlightenment. But the quality of your response leaves nothing for me to consider.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the reason i wondered about whether this story was to have some bigger meaning lay in the interpretation given of it---that the epa "cherrypicked" information--which i assume meant little more than the study in question was shaped by an argument, which was no doubt made explicit, both in the overview and in the methodology. any argument entails ways of attributing hierarchy to information, bringing some points forward and pushing others back, yes? that would mean that any argument is necessarily about a selective interpretation of factors, yes? so the fact that there was a selection in the reports that the epa relied upon is no surprise, is it? and if there were problems with the argument that justified those selections, or the methodologies used to translate that argument into a sorting mechanism for data, surely that problem does not lay with the fact of selection/limitation of information per se, but with how that selection was done, yes?
|
In the realm of rhetorical exchange this common practice, but it is, at the same time, unusual and inappropriate in the field of scientific research. The quality of each scientific publication is tested on the merits of its collective data through scientific peer review. In every form of scientific research it is a fundamental principle to regard ALL data – even ones that contradict your working hypothesis. Every single important scientific publication to date is reviewed systematically by independent parties to substantiate its findings. In time the veracity of all research is established through its endurance under repeated review and under repeat of the study by other parties. As a as a piece of scientific research, the 1993 EPA report is not exempt from this process. It just so happens that this was one report that did not bear the scrutiny of peer review.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
which could be countered with other studies, based on other arguments and procedures that would engender a different limitation/selection of data and would presumably include a demonstration of the claim that this alternate argument was important, more capacious, etc.
|
then I invite you to enlighten me. Please don’t make such claims in a vacuum. If you bring forth examples of “other studies” I promise to examine them with an objective eye. I’ve been wrong about many things before – It is not beneath me to withdraw my statements in light of stronger contrary evidence.
To reiterate a point I made earlier, I'm not a smoker nor have I ever been a smoker. I don't like to breathe second hand smoke if I don't have to. I'm a practicing internal medicine physician and see the chronic disease provoked by primary cigarette smoke every day in my patients who suffer from Coronary Artery Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease as well as those I've treated with Lung Cancer. I don't like second hand smoke - but, if I'm to advocate a restriction on public smoking on the grounds of health impact I'd rather do so with objective data at hand.