Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[snakey1]

Right got it; the overwhelming body of scientific evidence is wrong, but a couple of blokes posting on AN are right, makes sense to me?????

I've said i'd be quite happy to read through any evidence they could link to supporting their claims and even change my views if the evidence put forward was compelling enough but curiously they never seem to post any, strange that. I've posted several links to various papers put forward by various people and organisations (and these are the tip of the iceberg i could easily post more) including the royal college of physicians, and W.H.O but apparently these learned people know not of what they speak, well that or they're all part of a huge international conspiracy (probably something to do with the illuminati or david icke)depending upon who you listen to.

[*Ant*]

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything, couldn't care less really. All i'm saying is that there is plenty of so called evidence on the interweb to support either view. Spend a few hours reading and if you are still 100% positive that your opinion is the correct one then i'll concede that you are a better person than I.

[Tony U]

Ant

I am not doubting you have spent time and effort looking on the web but the internet is a wonderful mixture of anecdotal, scientific evidence along with opinions hearsay, vested interest and down right lies.

 

What I am looking for is scientific evidence i.e. evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. The standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.

 

If you can conform to thse cirteria and show doubt fair enough; put a paper forward to a peer group such as the BMC and see what their reaction is; until then I will stick to those who have put forward empirical facts rather than opinions.

 

Tony

Edited January 24, 2008 by Tony U

[*Ant*]

Ant

I am not doubting you have spent time and effort loking on the web but the internet is a wonderful mixture of anecdotal, scientific evidence along with opinions hearsay, vested interest and down right lies.

 

What I am looking for is scientific evidence i.e. evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. The standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.

 

If you can conform to thse cirteria and show doubt fair enough; put a paper forward to a peer group such as the BMC and see what their reaction is; until then I will stick to those who have put forward empirical facts rather than opinions.

 

Tony

 

That's just the trouble Tony, it would seem that one scientific groups "fact" is another scientific groups "fiction".

[Tony U]

That's just the trouble Tony, it would seem that one scientific groups "fact" is another scientific groups "fiction".

 

 

I never realised scientific method quite worked like that Ant, but as long as the facts are verifiable and quantifiable it can not be fiction whichever viewpoint it supports.

 

 

Tony

Edited January 24, 2008 by Tony U

[*Ant*]

I never realised scientific method quite worked like that Ant, but as long as the facts are verifiable and quantifiable it can not be fiction whichever viewpoint it supports.

Tony

 

Well wasn't the report on Iraqs WMD portrayed as a "fact"?

 

Maybe i'm just an old cynic, but from what I have seen and read, scientific "fact" depends on all sorts of variables such as who is supplying the funding, who commisioned the study, who has got most to gain, who has got most to lose, political slant etc etc

 

Let's not forget that scientific reports once told us about the dangers of eggs and that if some scientific reports were to be believed half the population would have died of CJD by now.

Edited January 24, 2008 by *Ant*

[DavyR]

Ant

I am sure Davy R could provide you with a reading list of attributable scientific papers on the issue if you want to do some serious research, otherwise you are just bearing out my comments.

 

Tony

 

I ain't getting involved, Tony! Apart from the few contributions I've already made to this thread, I don't think there's anything I can usefully add. The original argument seemed to be more about individual freedoms than health concerns anyway, and the thread has become so long and tangled that the same views and counter-views have been repeated several times over.

 

One thing the internet does seem to have done is to persuade people that there are no absolutes about anything (fair enough) and at the same time, all theories (however wacky) should be given equal weight (not fair enough).

[*Ant*]

I ain't getting involved, Tony! Apart from the few contributions I've already made to this thread, I don't think there's anything I can usefully add. The original argument seemed to be more about individual freedoms than health concerns anyway, and the thread has become so long and tangled that the same views and counter-views have been repeated several times over.

 

One thing the internet does seem to have done is to persuade people that there are no absolutes about anything (fair enough) and at the same time, all theories (however wacky) should be given equal weight (not fair enough).

 

Yep it sure can be a nightmare Davy. For instance, even those reports that agree about the dangers of passive smoking rarely agree about the severity of the dangers.

[Tony U]

Well wasn't the report on Iraqs WMD portrayed as a "fact"?

 

 

 

Let's not forget that scientific reports once told us about the dangers of eggs and that if some scientific reports were to be believed half the population would have died of CJD by now.

 

Ant

These are all examples of opinions not scientific evidence, look at my post on the subject.

 

Tony

[DavyR]

I think I mentioned the egg thing several pages back, but the point about scientific knowledge is that is never stands still, and the fact that theories change in response to new understanding doesn't mean that the original theories weren't based on the best available data at the time. In the 70s, it was thought that dietary cholesterol was a huge risk factor for heart disease. It's now recognised that the way an individual's body handles cholesterol is more important than the amount in the diet.