The dual standard in science

[swansont]

Nope. There's a high correlation. This means that under certain documented scientific procedures, there has been a noticeable relationship between smoking and the later apperance of cancer.

 

There is a high correlation between people who drive Cadillacs and who vote Republican, but I don't think anyone is arguing that driving such a car would cause you to vote a certain way. To say there is correlation does not recognize the causality; you can make a stronger statement than that. Smoking does cause cancer — the research goes beyond just accumulating statistics.

 

In a similar fashion, wearing seatbelts saves lives. Again, there is more to this than simply collecting statistics. The issue with stochastic processes is that you can't point to any single incidence of cancer and say it was caused by smoking, or any accident and say the seatbelt saved a life, or that a life would have been save had a seatbelt been worn.

[SkepticLance]

To Pioneer

 

I am getting the impression that you do not understand what correlation is.

 

It is NOT subject to political spin, any more than the answer to 1 + 1 = is subject to political spin.

 

A correlation is the answer to a statistical calculation. Two sets of numbers are related to each other by means of the calculation, and the result is a correlation coefficient. A number between 1 and minus 1. Political influence cannot affect this in any way.

 

Of course, the way the correlation is used, interpreted, and applied is political. But not the correlation itself.

[pioneer]

I agree that the math has functional capability but it treats the world like it a casino, full of gambling tables and risks factors. Often subjectivity can be used to present the correlation whichever way one prefers. I can say x will increase the risk 2% or I am 98% certain that X will not affect you. The former gets more mileage for further study. If a=b and b=a, we are done and there is nothing there to manipulate people with.

 

A study may say that eating peanut butter increases the risk of an allergic reaction. I never had a problem before. But now I have an increased risk? How did that study make my body more vulnerable to peanut butter? It does not apply to me, yet culture can force me to get with the program. Bu then again, since the study magically increased my risk maybe the herd knows this so I better get with the program. Better science would say you, you and you don't eat peanut butter. While you, you and you eat all that you want. This removes the spin of politics and affects of nannies.

[lucaspa]

Not at all. You still haven't grasped the essence of science.Science is not about 'truth'. It is about building on knowledge. There is no end game. You mistake religion for science. Religion is about discovering 'truth'.

 

I realize that science is not your strong point but a basic review of science 101 might point you in the right direction.

 

ROFL! Geoguy, if all you have is ad hominem, then you have nothing. I have been a professional research scientist for 33 years now. I teach philosophy of science to graduate students. I suggest for you, three books: The Philosophy of Science: A Historical Perspective by John Lossee

The Arch of Knowledge by David Oldroyd

Theories on the Scrapheap by John Lossee.

 

If you want a more technical look, Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues edited by Cover and Curd

 

Science is about "truth". That's what we do, try to find the "truth" about how the physical universe works. And some things we know are truth for certain:

1. The earth is not flat.

2. The earth is not the center of the solar system.

3. Each species was not specially created.

4. Proteins are not the hereditary material.

 

What you are doing is mistaking the tentativeness of science for positive statements as equivalent to not knowing ANY truth.

 

Yes, science builds knowledge, but how do we do that? By conclusively falsifying theories! We know those theories are false. IOW, that those theories are false is "true".

 

Now, do we know -- with the same degree of certainty -- that currently valid theories are true? No. Why not? Two reasons:

1. Using deductive logic (the hypothetico-deductive method), you can't ever, strictly speaking, prove anything. No matter how many rocks you drop, there are still an infinite number of rocks yet to drop, and one of them might fall up. (see quote below)

2. It is possible that there is a better theory out there that we haven't thought of yet.

 

What you are doing is focussing only on the positive (currently accepted) statements of science. You are forgetting the falsified theories. Don't feel bad, lots of scientists do the same.

 

"the experimental results may square with the hypothesis, or they may be inconsistent with it. ... but no matter how often the hypothesis is confirmed -- no matter how many apples fall downward instead of upwards --the hypothesis embodying the Newtonian gravitational scheme cannot be said to have been *proved to be true*. Any hypothesis is still sub judice and may conceivably be supplanted by a different hypothesis later on. ...To my mind the great strength of Karl Popper's conception of the scientific process is that it is realistic -- it gives a pretty fair picture of what actually goes on in real-life laboratories." "The Threat and the Glory", by P.B. Medawar (Nobel Prize winner in medicine), HarperCollins, New York, 1990 (original publication 1959). pp 96-101.

 

There is an easier, more rational way, to express the living state, which I have been working on for the past two decades. It is possible to express the complexity in the cell in terms of one variable, which is hydrogen bonding. Essentially, chemical complexity can be reduced to this one common variable. This one variable is in all proteins, RNA, DNA and water. Bulk structure defines the hydrogen bonding states. Pertubating these hydrogen bonding states in simulation allow us to predict the type of structure needed to achieve a particular hydrogen affect.

 

Hydrogen bonding is very important in interactions. All you have to do is read the first chapter "Water" in Lenninger's Biochemistry to realize that. However, it is not the only complexity within the cells.

 

You also need hydrophobicity. I think you think that hydrophobicity and hydrogen bonding are the same thing, but it is not so. All you have to consider is that those are 2 different means of separating proteins.

 

The current theory places the DNA at the top of the pile. But in reality the DNA is the harddrive that stores memory, while the H is the CPU that allows the harddrive to coordinate with the rest of the cell. The DNA defines a dynamic H-bonding environment both within itself and within the water that surrounds it. If the aqueous H environment around the DNA changes, due to directed pertubations in the cytoplasm, the equilibrium H-bond nature of the DNA will cause it to assume this new induced dynamic state.

 

Lots of big words, but again the data isn't quite accurate. Yes, hydrogen bonding between the bases is responsible for 1) deciding the complementary bases and 2) the triple helix. However, the binding of transcription factors that help unwind DNA for transcription of specific genes involves more than hydrogen bonding.

 

Hydrogen bonding is very weak: ~ 7 kcal/mole. Hydrophobic bonding is a bit stronger and covalent bonding is a LOT stronger. So, changing H bonding isn't going to account for synthesizing an mRNA strand and certainly can't account for putting amino acids together covalently to make a protein.

 

If one wishes to address the brain, it is far easier using one variable.

 

It may be easier, but that doesn't make it more accurate. We want accuracy, not ease.

 

Where there is a will there is a way is connected to H potentials. I can think about food in my imagination and make myself hungry. I essentially use H-potential to tweak the DNA in cells so they output hunger chems.

 

Not by the data I've seen. Please post the papers with this link. What I have seen is that it is the firing of particular neurons, with releases of neurochemicals from vesicles and binding of those to receptors on adjacent neurons. Your imagination can make you "hungry" far faster than you can make mRNA and translate those to proteins.

 

Nope. There's a high correlation. This means that under certain documented scientific procedures, there has been a noticeable relationship between smoking and the later apperance of cancer.

 

As Swansout has pointed out, you need more than an epidemiological correlation. Correlation is where you start, but in my graduate school statistics class the prof, on the first day, showed the fallacy of equating correlation with causation. You can plot the number of telephone poles/year on the x axis and the incidence of heart attacks/year on the y-axis. And it is a straight line! Perfect correlation. Conclusion: telephone poles cause heart attacks! It's completely wrong, of course.

 

Instead, there is vast literature linking the chemicals in cigarette smoke with transformation of lung epithelial cells both in vitro (culture) and in vivo (animals and humans) to cancer cells. That is your causation.

 

Epidemiological studies can get a handle on causation by doing the appropriate population controls and thus isolating one or more variables as "causes". But the controls have to be there.

 

I agree that the math has functional capability but it treats the world like it a casino, full of gambling tables and risks factors. Often subjectivity can be used to present the correlation whichever way one prefers. I can say x will increase the risk 2% or I am 98% certain that X will not affect you.

 

Not if you do the math correctly. Have you ever done statistics?

 

A study may say that eating peanut butter increases the risk of an allergic reaction. I never had a problem before. But now I have an increased risk? How did that study make my body more vulnerable to peanut butter?

 

Your body was ALREADY vulnerable to developing an allergy to peanut butter. The study didn't change your body, but rather found out a bit of how the immune system works. And yes, continued exposure to a foreign protein increases the likliehood that your immune system will make antibodies against it: an allergic reaction. It's not certain when your immune system will do so. You may die of other causes long before that happens.

 

 

This is data. It then is up to you to decide what you want to do in regard to this risk. How do YOU evaluate your personal risk? If you evaluate it as very low, then you can ignore it. I don't know of any study -- if you read the peer-reviewed paper -- that tells you absolutely what to do. It simply tells you what the consequences are, and the likliehood of thos consquences.

 

Look at it this way: physics tells you that jumping off the Empire State Building will result in a 99.999999+% chance of death. Do you want to discard physics for that? Is physics telling you NOT to jump? NO! Are you complaining about "getting on the cultural bandwagon" of not jumping? Why not? Remember, there may be some weird set of circumstances that would result in your survival from such a fall.

[SkepticLance]

lucaspa said :

 

Remember, there may be some weird set of circumstances that would result in your survival from such a fall.

 

There was a guy in WWII whose bomber was shot down. He jumped out in flames, and his parachute caught fire when opened, and turned to ashes. He fell over Germany in winter at terminal velocity. He fell through forest, with the tree tops covered in snow which slowed him dramatically and landed in a deep snow drift which cushioned his final impact. He crawled out of the snow drift with a few bruises, and no broken bones. Definitely a million to one chance, but it can happen.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa said :

 

Remember, there may be some weird set of circumstances that would result in your survival from such a fall.

 

There was a guy in WWII whose bomber was shot down. He jumped out in flames, and his parachute caught fire when opened, and turned to ashes. He fell over Germany in winter at terminal velocity. He fell through forest, with the tree tops covered in snow which slowed him dramatically and landed in a deep snow drift which cushioned his final impact. He crawled out of the snow drift with a few bruises, and no broken bones. Definitely a million to one chance, but it can happen.

 

Yep. But I doubt Pioneer would test that out himself thinking he was the 1:1,000,000. Even the airman didn't: after all, he had a parachute!

 

I can understand people who get their science from TV news or talk radio being frustrated: eat eggs, don't eat eggs, eat eggs, don't eat eggs, etc. I get frustrated when I hear stories saying "the risk is doubled". That doesn't tell me anything unless I know what the original risk was. If the risk was 1 in a million, then 2 in a million doesn't concern me. OTOH, if the risk was 1 in 100, then increasing to 1 in 50 means something.

 

A colleague wants news stories to print a line showing relative risks with some landmark risks -- such as being struck by lightning -- and then showing where the risk being talked about falls on the line. I agree and wish all news stories would have a "Risk Line".

[swansont]

A colleague wants news stories to print a line showing relative risks with some landmark risks -- such as being struck by lightning -- and then showing where the risk being talked about falls on the line. I agree and wish all news stories would have a "Risk Line".

 

Good idea, except I don't trust the news to get it right.

 

Ran across this recently, on how folks often don't get the right numbers on odds ratios

[SkepticLance]

I agree with lucaspa on the need for a risk assessment.

 

I read an article in the last Skeptic magazine. They discussed the risks of hormone replacement therapy for women going through menopause. The very large study that recently caused doctors everywhere to stop prescribing HRT was discussed.

 

Quote :

 

Over 10,000 person years, women on oestrogen plus progesterone had 7 more coronary events, 8 more strokes, 8 more pulmonary emboli, and 8 more invasive breast cancers than women who didn't take hormones. But they also had 6 fewer colorectal cancers, and 5 fewer hip fractures, and the same number of deaths overall.

 

So the study that has changed prescribing habits world wide, and condemned millions of women into greater menopause suffering, in fact showed no extra deaths. Knowing this, what woman would choose to suffer menopause with no mitigating therapy, just to avoid a miniscule increased risk of a non fatal illness?

 

We definitely need to be told risk factors.

[Paralith]

I agree with lucaspa on the need for a risk assessment.

 

I read an article in the last Skeptic magazine. They discussed the risks of hormone replacement therapy for women going through menopause. The very large study that recently caused doctors everywhere to stop prescribing HRT was discussed.

 

Quote :

 

Over 10,000 person years, women on oestrogen plus progesterone had 7 more coronary events, 8 more strokes, 8 more pulmonary emboli, and 8 more invasive breast cancers than women who didn't take hormones. But they also had 6 fewer colorectal cancers, and 5 fewer hip fractures, and the same number of deaths overall.

 

So the study that has changed prescribing habits world wide, and condemned millions of women into greater menopause suffering, in fact showed no extra deaths. Knowing this, what woman would choose to suffer menopause with no mitigating therapy, just to avoid a miniscule increased risk of a non fatal illness?

 

We definitely need to be told risk factors.

 

Ugh, tell me about it. I know women who are convinced that being on birth control for too long will give you cancer (because of the hormones). And they think I'm crazy for disagreeing with their doctors. I can't help it that I want a little more proof than that before I'll believe it.