[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Stefano Mori]

On 2007-Aug-14, at 18:27, Chris Gehlker wrote:

>> When a doctor says that the treatment is 70% effective, what that
>> means is that from experience, 70% of the thousands of patients
>> already treated were cured. That's empirical.
>>
>> But if they maintain that in future it will remain 70% effective,
>> then they are not being empirical. Bacteria develop resistance, so
>> the figure for the future is not known. The drug may become
>> completely useless. This is already been observed on a time scale of
>> 10 years.

>> If by "will" you mean you are making a forecast about the future,
>> then you need to empirically show why your forecast will work, and
>> why other factors won't affect the outcome, otherwise it ain't
>> scientific.
>>
>> Stefano
>
> I congratulate you. You really are willing to get close to the Philip
> Morris position to maintain consistency. I find that perversely
> admirable.

I've never been congratulated for my perversity before, thanks it  
feels good.


> You  may  be heartened to know that the mechanism by  which cigarette
> smoke causes lung cancer is less well understood than the mechanism
> by which greenhouse gasses cause global warming. The  latter  can,
> after all, be  demonstrated with a lamp, a shoe box, a thermometer
> and a canister of C02. Also the  scientists who shilled for the
> tobacco companies kept pointing out that there could  be some
> undiscovered factor, perhaps genetic, that predisposed some people to
> both lung cancer and nicotine addiction. This hypothesis was never
> refuted because it can't be.

I'm not talking about refuting the link between tobacco and lung cancer.

I'm talking about what it takes to make a prediction about the future  
of lung cancer in an empirical and trustable way.

It's the difference between saying "25% of smokers got lung cancer",  
and "25% of smokers will get lung cancer". The first we know from  
experience. It's been measured and is a fact. The latter is a  
forecast which depends on many factors. Like I suggested, if due to  
changes in social trends, smokers only start later in life, or  
current smokers quit earlier in life, then neither group may get  
cancer anywhere near as much. This is a fact we already know from  
experience. The problem is knowing whether those factors will, due to  
changing social habits, become more prominent in future, and  
therefore make your forecast about smokers wrong.

Perhaps you didn't mean "will" as a forecast, perhaps you just meant,  
"y'all need to realise that this stuff has been killing people", and  
that's fine. The problem is when you start expecting that 25% of  
smokers WILL get it in future.

Stefano