4 ms·
My personal take: a demonstration that the burden of proof in a scientific (or technological) sense is very different from the burden of proof in a legal sense.
by powera 10y ago
My personal take: a demonstration that the burden of proof in a scientific (or technological) sense is very different from the burden of proof in a legal sense.
- klodolph 10y agoThis has always been the case. The standard for scientific proof in the natural sciences is often quite high, and the legal standard for tort claims is usually "preponderance of evidence", which you could think of as a P-value of 0.50. The lowest P-value acceptable in most scientific fields is 0.10, more common you would use 0.05, and particle physicists would use 0.0000003 (for announcing the discovery of a new particle).
- throwaway_xx9 10y agop-values are B.S. unless used by a statistician.
- dietrichepp 10y agoThis statement is obvious nonsense. You might as well say that chemical names are B.S. unless used by a chemist.
- labster 10y agoUsed by a chemist, BS would be B2S3. You have to balance the charges to use BS properly.
- PakG1 10y agop-values are especially dangerous if used by a statistician. They'll know best how to manipulate the charts and data to look good and fool laypeople. Motive and intent are the most important issues.
- plainOldText 10y ago"Scientific conclusions and business or policy decisions should not be based only on whether a p-value passes a specific threshold. P-values can indicate how incompatible the data are with a specified statistical model. P-values do not measure the prob. that the studied hypothesis is true, or the prob. that the data were produced by random chance alone." Source: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00031305.2016....
- mtgx 10y agoMaybe the US should do what the EU does and ban such substances the moment there is some proof that they may do harm, and the burden should be on the industry to prove without a doubt that they don't cause harm. Instead, the US government is trying to do the opposite by repealing such policies in the EU and making them more like in the US where anything is accepted until millions get cancer from it.
- sokoloff 10y agoWater may do harm (it causes drowning). Oxygen may do harm (it increases the intensity of fire). "May do harm" cannot possibly be the standard.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago> the burden should be on the industry to prove without a doubt that they don't cause harm This is incoherent. There are no substances like this.
- deelowe 10y agoExactly. This doesn't make any sense. Sunlight causes cancer. Maybe we should start there?
- DanBC 10y ago> Maybe the US should do what the EU does and ban such substances the moment there is some proof that they may do harm, We know that processed red meat causes cancer. Processed red meat has not been banned by the EU. There are countless other examples.
- sect2k 10y agoThat is just not true. The red meat part (http://chriskresser.com/red-meat-cancer-again-will-it-ever-stop/ http://chriskresser.com/red-meat-cancer-again-will-it-ever-s...). Also talc is legal in EU.
- 10y ago