Poll on Not Smoking DURING tournament matches.
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
No Neil, you missed my point about that series. The research quoted in that show *was* actual research -- just as actual as the research conducted today. Here are ad campaigns constructed around actual scientific research, and the "conclusions" the ad drew from them is just as much a stretch as the examples Hu cited. My point is that conclusions themselves are not foolproof, and not to be trusted. Time itself shows that. What's "true" today, isn't tomorrow, when more study is conducted, and the original conclusion arrived at, proves to be wrong -- or an alternative conclusion is reached.
You are the one making assumptions, and grasping at straws / reading out of context.
For your own edification, I don't follow *any* corporation at all. I don't follow any anti-smoking campaigns, I don't follow any research, I don't follow any political party, and I certainly take what the government tells me with a grain of salt. I am my own man, and make my own life decisions. So please, let's stop making assumptions about each other. Attack the data, or stance in a debate, yes. But not each other, ok?
-Sean
OK OK no editing -- new post
When one does not know about the power required for statistical conclusions or when one chooses to cheat it is a small matter to ask four physicians if they use brand X and then report that 3 of 4 physicians recommend brand X. And if you don’t get the desired result the first time ask five physicians and quote the last four.
It is easy to cheat and it is also easy to make mistakes. One of our inherent limitations is publishing only significant findings and ignoring results that are not significant and do not support some conclusion reached in some sensational study. The scientific community has been addressing this issue for some time now.
Marriage too has a good deal of usefulness as an institution and it is also easy to cheat, in fact many do. But this does not mean that we should stop getting married.
In the sciences we have standards for how we graph data so as not to exaggerate some phenomena. However, most news papers do not follow these standards and use exaggerated displays to make some point.
In the sciences it is well understood that all conclusions are tentative. That is why some people are challenging the idea that the speed of light is a constant -- maybe -- maybe not.
When one does not know about the power required for statistical conclusions or when one chooses to cheat it is a small matter to ask four physicians if they use brand X and then report that 3 of 4 physicians recommend brand X. And if you don’t get the desired result the first time ask five physicians and quote the last four.
It is easy to cheat and it is also easy to make mistakes. One of our inherent limitations is publishing only significant findings and ignoring results that are not significant and do not support some conclusion reached in some sensational study. The scientific community has been addressing this issue for some time now.
Marriage too has a good deal of usefulness as an institution and it is also easy to cheat, in fact many do. But this does not mean that we should stop getting married.
In the sciences we have standards for how we graph data so as not to exaggerate some phenomena. However, most news papers do not follow these standards and use exaggerated displays to make some point.
In the sciences it is well understood that all conclusions are tentative. That is why some people are challenging the idea that the speed of light is a constant -- maybe -- maybe not.
Last edited:
You are welcome. I really think you'll enjoy it -- just as much for how we as a society seemed to survive on such faulty reasoning as the entertainment factor. The acting in this is REALLY good!
And that (bolded above) is key. Give a screwdriver to an inept person, and he/she will stab themselves in the face with it. Research is not to be used except by those qualified to use it. And that includes the anti-smoking campaign as well -- many (most?) of those folks are NOT QUALIFIED to use the research they're using. That's why I don't personally follow or subscribe to them. I lost some family and friends (one recently) to cancer. The recent one was tracked down to the environment he worked in, which -- and the smokers in this thread are going to go nuts (are you ready, Neil?
) -- was mostly smokers (he was a non-smoker all his life). The type of cancer was very specific to the tar present in cigarette smoke, and he didn't know -- because he'd grown tolerance to the smoke -- that he was slowly being destroyed from the inside out.I go by what I see, and what I know. And I trust others who are "in the know" -- i.e. profession. And, if I'm confused, or otherwise lacking in the knowledge, I ask them what conclusion should I draw from so-and-so research, when it's presented to me. I do the same for them, in my profession.
-Sean
the folks framing the study decide what is included
Joe,
We are right now seeing how many blatantly biased studies have been generated by global warming advocates. These were well respected researchers for the most part too. I am well aware that researchers have to turn out what is wanted to keep the money flowing. Many, maybe even the majority of studies are biased. By selecting what data to include and what to leave out and how to present it the study can find pretty much anything it wants to. Some of these studies are quoted for decades after they are known to be in error also.
Bottom line is that the researchers are people too. Usually people with goals, ambitions, and families to feed. Thinking that they are godlike infallable beings up on pedestals sitting at the right hand of God is foolish.
By selecting the start point, end point, and data included in a study almost anything can be proven. Garbage in, carefully polished and presented is still garbage coming out.
Do note I'm not just talking about the studies I don't like, these statements apply to much if not most research across the board.
Phone surveys are another example of easily skewed research. Obviously the questions can be biased but even without that obvious bias the survey can be influenced by who is called and the time of day, day of week, and time of year that they are called. Then the data is presented as unvarnished fact and influences the public.
Scientific study is a lot like legal documents, the bigger the body of work, the more wiggle room you can find. Even people with good and honest intentions often find it easier to find the results their superiors and backers want.
Hu
Joe,
We are right now seeing how many blatantly biased studies have been generated by global warming advocates. These were well respected researchers for the most part too. I am well aware that researchers have to turn out what is wanted to keep the money flowing. Many, maybe even the majority of studies are biased. By selecting what data to include and what to leave out and how to present it the study can find pretty much anything it wants to. Some of these studies are quoted for decades after they are known to be in error also.
Bottom line is that the researchers are people too. Usually people with goals, ambitions, and families to feed. Thinking that they are godlike infallable beings up on pedestals sitting at the right hand of God is foolish.
By selecting the start point, end point, and data included in a study almost anything can be proven. Garbage in, carefully polished and presented is still garbage coming out.
Do note I'm not just talking about the studies I don't like, these statements apply to much if not most research across the board.
Phone surveys are another example of easily skewed research. Obviously the questions can be biased but even without that obvious bias the survey can be influenced by who is called and the time of day, day of week, and time of year that they are called. Then the data is presented as unvarnished fact and influences the public.
Scientific study is a lot like legal documents, the bigger the body of work, the more wiggle room you can find. Even people with good and honest intentions often find it easier to find the results their superiors and backers want.
Hu
Sadly the bolded section is all too true.
The phone survey thing is a difficult issue. I agree they have affected the outcome of some things. On the other hand, they have also been shown to be highly accurate at times. I guess, like many things in life, a consumate skill is required and one needs to consider the source (those conducting the research and their level of expertise) and several other factors.
Neii:
JoeW made an astute statement, that I think is true: "I guess we all go to our own church when it comes to how we come to know things. Reasonable and devout practitioners are those who are most aware of the limitations of their methods."
And believe me, I know the limitations of my knowledge. On the flip side of the coin, you seem to adopt the stance of "there is no spoon" when it comes to smoking and cancer. It doesn't exist. That what we've been told is a lie, and a big conspiracy (presumably a Bilderberg thing or something?).
Well, in the spirit of pushing aside my stance for a moment, and being open to new ideas, I ask you to provide me some sort of "research" to support your stance that "there is no spoon" when it comes to smoking and cancer. And please don't send me links to the wayback machine for sites that no longer exist, or some AOL website where someone tossed up pictures of a normal healthy lung with the statement "this lung is from a smoker that smoked 2 packs a day for over 50 years." *Anyone* can do that -- put up a picture, and make a statement or conclusion. The source is key to me, as I've stated above. Me personally? I prefer organizations that don't have an agenda -- that means no American Cancer Society, no anti-smoking campaigners, no tobacoo companies, etc. I'd be VERY interested in what you have to share that supports your stance -- and I use the term interested to mean just that -- no agenda, other than looking forward to new knowledge.
Can you do that? If you prefer, PM me, and I'll send you my email address.
-Sean
FTR, I do not smoke and never have.
Why don't we as Americans just put the "smoking in public places" issue to a National vote?
I bet the National results would be similar to the results on this poll.
We could finally lay this issue to rest. After all, we are a democracy aren't we?
I am neither obese nor unhealthy. I try to take care of myself. Andy Kaufman died from lung cancer and had never smoked. It was said that he contracted cancer from breathing second-hand smoke in the many nightclubs he performed in (much like smoky poolhalls). I do not wish to get cancer from someone elses habit. Until human beings found so many ways to foul-up the air, our lungs got the kind of air they needed. Now we pollute the air we breathe. Smoking, especially in enclosed buildings with poor (or no) ventilation systems forces those that wish to breathe better air for health reasons (second-hand smoke HAS been proven to cause cancer) to breathe air that may damage their health, and to the point of shortening one's lifespan.
Bottom line is: Cigarette smokers have already killed innocent people.
How many more must die?
Smokers, go ahead and post all the lame excuses as to why it's your right blah, blah, blah. Or how some of the things that I do on an everyday basis can kill people blah, blah, blah. Defend that nasty habit of yours all you want. You ain't gonna convince me (or millions of others) otherwise.
Maniac (tired of red, burning eyes and nagging cough from exposure to cigarette smoke)
Why don't we as Americans just put the "smoking in public places" issue to a National vote?
I bet the National results would be similar to the results on this poll.
We could finally lay this issue to rest. After all, we are a democracy aren't we?
I am neither obese nor unhealthy. I try to take care of myself. Andy Kaufman died from lung cancer and had never smoked. It was said that he contracted cancer from breathing second-hand smoke in the many nightclubs he performed in (much like smoky poolhalls). I do not wish to get cancer from someone elses habit. Until human beings found so many ways to foul-up the air, our lungs got the kind of air they needed. Now we pollute the air we breathe. Smoking, especially in enclosed buildings with poor (or no) ventilation systems forces those that wish to breathe better air for health reasons (second-hand smoke HAS been proven to cause cancer) to breathe air that may damage their health, and to the point of shortening one's lifespan.
Bottom line is: Cigarette smokers have already killed innocent people.
How many more must die?
Smokers, go ahead and post all the lame excuses as to why it's your right blah, blah, blah. Or how some of the things that I do on an everyday basis can kill people blah, blah, blah. Defend that nasty habit of yours all you want. You ain't gonna convince me (or millions of others) otherwise.
Maniac (tired of red, burning eyes and nagging cough from exposure to cigarette smoke)
Because if I choose CLEAN, SMOKE-FREE air in an establishment that allows smoking, I have lost my choice to have clean air.
Am I supposed to NOT go to all places that allow smoking? If so, my choices of places to patronize are going to be rather small, especially in pool halls!!!
Maniac
Predictable. A poll.
So you have an 80-20 split.
I guess it is the same with White and Black. It is ok to tell those
lowly 20 per-centers what for. And for the smaller groups, we can
just screw them.
We make the rules, and you are out voted.
for toilet flushes
for curley bulbs
for sitting in the back of the bus
for smoking in your own car
Doing the right thing is not a matter of voting on it. We do not
have a democracy. If you remember the Pledge of Allegiance, the
term is a Republic. That is representative government. It is not
mob rule.
Yes, by all means. Lets put our freedoms to a vote!
Not!
So you have an 80-20 split.
I guess it is the same with White and Black. It is ok to tell those
lowly 20 per-centers what for. And for the smaller groups, we can
just screw them.
We make the rules, and you are out voted.
for toilet flushes
for curley bulbs
for sitting in the back of the bus
for smoking in your own car
Doing the right thing is not a matter of voting on it. We do not
have a democracy. If you remember the Pledge of Allegiance, the
term is a Republic. That is representative government. It is not
mob rule.
Yes, by all means. Lets put our freedoms to a vote!
Not!
Last edited:
I think that's fair. There are extremists no matter where you go, no matter what side of the fence you're on. (I'm using the royal form of the word "you" btw, Neil -- not you personally.) Unfortunately, some of "us" human beings don't know the word "moderation." Some think things are black and white, hot or cold, visible (exists) or invisible (doesn't exist). And let's not "go there" when it comes to religious extremists / fanatics. You know the old expression, "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
I *do* know, by personal experience, that smoking causes cancer, and I've never smoked in my life. I also *do* know, by personal experience, that second-hand smoke causes cancer. (But I'm thinking my friend died from cigarettes smoldering in ashtrays -- incomplete combustion -- rather than exhaled smoke that is cleansed by complete combustion [bellows process of forcing oxygen through embers] / cigarette filter / the smoker's lungs.)
I think it's fair -- reasonable, actually -- to discount "conclusions drawn" from research -- any research. In fact, I subscribe to this method of thinking.
-Sean
tomnan24
Registered
So, if I get you correctly, every establishment in the world should be as you like it just in case you may go there someday. Tell that to the 17(estimate?) pool halls no one can go to anymore in Cincinnati.
All I was saying is that if you have it your way (assuming you're a smoker), then I cannot have it my way.
There must/should be some middle ground.
If a city permits a building to be used as a restaurant or poolhall and the ratio of such establishments is already higher on the "smoking allowed" side, then the permit for the new establishment should only permit for a "non-smoking" establishment for the purpose of striking a balance.
I do realize that since smoking has been going on for so many years, that it is not possible (or right) to eliminate smoking establishments altogether.
Can you at least agree that we (non-smokers) should have places where we could go if we didn't want to subject ourselves to smoke?
Maniac
<...insert scene from the classic Alfred Hitchcock horror flick, Psycho, with the creepy "squeak! squeak! squeak!" soundtrack and the suspended ceiling lamp is swinging back and forth...>
Neil, first of all, and of course with all due respect, I think you misread what I wrote again. I'm not the one with cancer (at least not that I'm aware of, but hints of seeing a physician for yearly physical exams are always welcomed, and I thank you for that). As far as I know, I'm healthy. In what I wrote, it's family and friends that've died from cancer. And in almost all cases, they were smokers (the one exception is my friend that died from lung cancer, even though he never smoked a day in his life, but rather got it from working 30 years in tight quarters with heavy smokers). Right now, only my mom, a smoker, is still alive, and she has bad emphysema. The rest of the family is working on her to quit, but she's in her mid-70s, fixed in her ways, saying that although she knows it's killing her, it's her one vice and she can't just give it up.
In line with the Psycho reference, are you trying to say that I should discount what all the doctors told me -- mind you, these are schooled professionals with many decades of training, some that'd worked at Mount Sinai medical center in NYC, some of the best doctors in the nation -- and "wake up" to the fresh knowledge that you, a non-doctor/non-medical person from what I can tell, who'd displayed in previous posts some links to amateurish web pages from the wayback machine as his knowledge reference, is bestowing upon me? (I'm sorry if that description stings; I tried to soften it best I can to make sure I'm not attacking you personally, but rather your debate stance.)
Are doctors fallible? Of course they are. Do they make mistakes in judgment/diagnosis? All the time. As professionals, do they strive to do the very best they can with the knowledge they have? Of course they do. Are some doctors' diagnoses biased or otherwise corrupted by outside influences (e.g. sponsorship from / ownership by pharmaceutical companies)? Of course. Do I think that bad/biased/corrupted doctors practices will eventually catch up with them. Yep, you betcha -- putting the law aside, prairie justice will prevail -- those doctors who are honest will eventually get the business of those doctors who've pissed off enough patients through bad/corrupted practices.
However, do I think the doctors involved in my family/friends' cancer situations were bad/biased/corrupted doctors? Nope. They are all happily still in business, or happily retired, and not *one* of them ever had a hint of being suspected of being corrupted through outside influences. (Believe me, after the family member / friend died, we the family looked into that -- it's only natural to do so.) And did we get second/third/fourth opinions? Of course we did.
Let's look at this another way: do doctors definitively know the cause of all cancers out there? Of course not -- this is the ever-evolving cycle of knowledge. They are finding causes all the time. Some are genetic (congenital -- a bad chromosome pair), some are indeed caused by certain carcinogens, some are caused by a virus, and some are still unknown. But do I believe a doctor, when he biopsies a lung, and comes to the conclusion that the smoker's 2-pack-a-day for 40 year habit caused it (after having exhausted other explorations, like whether the person worked around other carcinogens)? Of course I do.
So, no malice intended, for you to imply or say that I should discount the diagnosis of the doctors in question for some conspiracy theory is almost surreal.
Neil, I'm not going to comment on your personal doctor's/institution's record-keeping practices. I'll just refer you to the questions I posed above about whether I believe doctors make mistakes and whether some are bad/biased/corrupted by outside influences. Because I do believe those people/situations exist. But I don't lambaste or broad-sweep-generalize the entire institution of medicine for the mistakes/malpractices of a few. Remember in a previous post how I mentioned that some people don't know the meaning of the word "moderation," how they think everything is black and white, hot or cold, visible (exists) or invisible (doesn't exist)? I really think you need to explore that question for yourself.
Or, let's explore it this way: have you thought of changing doctors because you don't like the "record-keeping obfuscation practices" of your current one? I'm not sure about your area/state, but here in NY, I'm kind of fortunate in that there are hospitals, doctors, and specialists beyond counting ability. If I don't "like" the diagnosis or practices of one doctor, I can go just down the street to another one. On the topic of diagnosis specifically, if the first doctor's diagnosis agreed with second and third opinions, I'll go back to the first doctor and give him the business for getting it right the first time. Here in NY, it BEHOOVES doctors to get it right the first time (diagnosis-wise), or otherwise be honest in their business practices, because putting malpractice law aside for the moment, they lose the business otherwise. I mean, it seems like an obvious question, but have you tried other doctors? (I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I had to ask.)
-Sean
