In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - re: some outstandingly confused thinking. Or writing.
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:25:31 GMT, mackeral@remove~this~first~yahoo.com
>(J. Williams) wrote:
>[ snip; Slate reference, etcetera ]
>> ... My mother was 91 years
>> old when she died a year ago and chain smoked since her college days.
>> She defended the tobacco companies for years saying, "it didn't hurt
>> me." She outlived most of her doctors. Upon quoting statistics and
>> research on the subject, her view was that I, like other "do gooders
>> and non-smokers," wanted to deny smokers their rights.
>What statistics would her view quote? to show that someone
>wants to deny smokers 'their rights'?
>[ Hey, I didn't write the sentence ....]
NO amount of demographic statistics can PROVE, even
"statistically", that smoking is harmful to the person
doing it. Statistical arguments based on such data
are at most indications, and may even be wrong. The
woman who died recently at 120, a claimant for the
title of the oldest living person, gave up smoking at
the age of 114.
>I just love it, how a 'natural right' works out to be *exactly*
>what the speaker wants to do.
That is essentially it. The only meaningful rights are the
rights to do what others do not want you to do.
And not a whit more.
>(Thomas and Scalia are probably going to give us tons
>of that bad philosophy, over the next decades.)
>What rights are denied to smokers? You know, you can't
>build your outhouse right on the riverbank, either.
This only applies to second hand smoke, where the
rights of others are directly involved. In some
places, you can build your outhouse right on the
riverbank; the only reason that you cannot or should
not do so generally are that it would threaten others.
>> Obviously,
>> there is a health connection. How strong that connection is, is what
>> makes this a unique statistical conundrum.
>How strong is that connection? Well, quite strong.
Personally, I believe that there is a connection. But it
is a situation where the prior probabilities of the various
states make a big difference.
>I once considered that it might not be so bad to die 9 years
>early, owing to smoking, if that cut off years of bad health
>and suffering. Then I realized, the smoking grants you
>most of the bad health of old age, EARLY. (You do miss
>the Alzheimer's.) One day, I might give up smoking my pipe.
Why are you smoking a pipe? Pipe smokers produce second
hand smoke, and lots of objectionable odors. Can you cite
any benefits which cigarette smokers cannot also claim?
Everything involves risks and benefits, and the individual
should decide.
>What is the statistical conundrum? I can almost
>imagine an ethical conundrum. ("How strongly can
>we legislate, to encourage cyclists to wear helmets?")
>I sure don't spot a statistical conundrum.
I see no statistical conundrum, either, but merely a
situation where the regulators are using a very large
amount of prior assumptions to justify the legislation.
Now this does not mean that most of those assumptions may
not be correct, but that this is what they are going by. I
believe that one MUST use prior assumptions, as otherwise
one will be strongly inconsistent, and it is even possible
that nothing will be done.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
