At 06:07 PM 7/3/01, Jeroen wrote:
>At 15:09 3-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>>Before I take the time to go over the results of scientific analysis of
>>claims such as these, I'd like to ask one question. Do you accept the
>>validity of scientific analysis? Would you agree that claims of death or
>>damage need to be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny?
>
>Of course I do.
>
>You'll have to come up with some very convincing evidence, though. Let's
>say a report claims that in a town with a nuclear power plant nearby, the
>cancer rate is three times as high as the national average, and the power
>plant is blamed for it. You'll have a hard time convincing me that the
>higher rate is just a coincidence, and not related to the presence of that
>nuclear power plant.
Can anyone provide a reference to such a report in a recognized,
independent, peer-reviewed journal, e.g., _Nature_?
Otherwise, such an argument has no more substance than one that begins with
a statement such as "Let's say a report claims that the early ancestors of
the human race constructed a giant face just before they left Mars for
Earth . . . "
This is not meant as a personal attack on you or anyone else (not even
Richard C. Hoagland!). It's simply a somewhat humorous (hopefully) way of
pointing out that we need to base our decisions and actions on facts, not
hypotheticals.
-- Ronn! :)
