4 ms·

Apart from the political issues, I want to point out that air pollution can be objectively measured, but the connection with childhood asthma can only be conjec

by lutusp 10y ago

Apart from the political issues, I want to point out that air pollution can be objectively measured, but the connection with childhood asthma can only be conjecture for lack of rigorous scientific controls -- it's a correlation, not an established cause/effect relationship. I point this out because of the depressing regularity with which I see a raw correlation presented as though it represents a linked cause/effect relationship without the source meeting his scientific burden of evidence.

mikeyouse 10y ago
There is essentially zero doubt about the causative link at this point. Some studies will never be run because they would be deeply unethical, so we satisfy significance through a preponderance of correlation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/
- johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
  lutusp is referring to this study in particular. There are many variables that potentially should be corrected for that aren't mentioned in the article.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    I get that, but we're not going to run a double-blind randomized study on whether car exhaust gives kids asthma. So our next best option is to take all of the relevant research, aggregate it as best possible, and make recommendations based on those results. There will be shortcomings, we might never get to a 99.9% significance, but in the mean time -- Kids will stop getting asthma from car exhaust.
    - lutusp 10y ago
      > I get that, but we're not going to run a double-blind randomized study on whether car exhaust gives kids asthma. Yes, but the point I have been trying to make is that, when we don't do science, we need to say we haven't done the science. Too much public information is pseudoscience without anyone saying to. > ... but in the mean time -- Kids will stop getting asthma from car exhaust. I understand that you're not getting this, but any number of times people have gone down the wrong path, let astray by pseudoscience, and calling it science all the while. As it happens, asthma is as likely to be caused by an overly clean environment as a polluted one -- observations support either conclusion. "Is Cleanliness Among the Causes of Allergies?" : http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergies.aspx http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergi... Again, we cannot draw a conclusion without doing some science. My only point in bringing this to your attention is so you realize this issue is by no means settled, and no issue can be settled without science. Environmental pollution is a serious problem, one I happen to think should be aggressively addressed. But if we offer a bogus reason, opponents in industry will use that bogus reason to fight a needed change.
- lutusp 10y ago
  > There is essentially zero doubt about the causative link at this point. Science isn't based on hand-waving -- falsifiable empirical evidence is required. Any number of assumptions like this have fallen by the wayside over the decades, undermined by overlooked correlations that weren't included in the original analysis. The scientific bottom line is easy to state -- is the assumption falsifiable using empirical evidence? If this condition cannot be met, it's not science. Related: https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0?t=37 https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0?t=37 > Some studies will never be run because they would be deeply unethical ... That cannot be offered as an argument to justify dispensing with scientific discipline. It's as simple as that. > ... so we satisfy significance through a preponderance of correlation ... Yes, but that is not science, it's politics or numerology. Using the method you just described, I can prove that there's a connection -- a "link" -- between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2640550/Does-sour-cream-cause-bike-accidents-No-looks-like-does-Graphs-reveal-statistics-produce-false-connections.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2640550/Does-... But, as is often said, correlation is not causation. Does this mean I can claim there's no connection (or a poor connection) between childhood asthma and air pollution? No, for the same reason that you cannot say there is -- it's not scientific. I ask that you think about your position. If we allow public policy to be guided by the kind of pseudoscience you're advocating, if we dispense with the falsifiability criterion, then religious beliefs can substitute for science, and Creationism can be taught as science in public-school science classrooms.
  - ced 10y ago
    Can you name one source of pollution suspected of causing health issues, that meets the criterion of falsifiability from evidence? It seems to me that as soon as behaviour X is suspected of killing people, it becomes unethical to do a controlled study that forces some people to live under X. So we're always at the mercy of spurious correlations. Consider cigarettes --- has there been a 40-year controlled study on smoking? Yet, at some point, the observational evidence starts to pile up and one has to make decisions based on that.
    - lutusp 10y ago

by lutusp 10y ago

mikeyouse 10y ago

There is essentially zero doubt about the causative link at this point. Some studies will never be run because they would be deeply unethical, so we satisfy significance through a preponderance of correlation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/

johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
lutusp is referring to this study in particular. There are many variables that potentially should be corrected for that aren't mentioned in the article.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  I get that, but we're not going to run a double-blind randomized study on whether car exhaust gives kids asthma. So our next best option is to take all of the relevant research, aggregate it as best possible, and make recommendations based on those results. There will be shortcomings, we might never get to a 99.9% significance, but in the mean time -- Kids will stop getting asthma from car exhaust.
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > I get that, but we're not going to run a double-blind randomized study on whether car exhaust gives kids asthma. Yes, but the point I have been trying to make is that, when we don't do science, we need to say we haven't done the science. Too much public information is pseudoscience without anyone saying to. > ... but in the mean time -- Kids will stop getting asthma from car exhaust. I understand that you're not getting this, but any number of times people have gone down the wrong path, let astray by pseudoscience, and calling it science all the while. As it happens, asthma is as likely to be caused by an overly clean environment as a polluted one -- observations support either conclusion. "Is Cleanliness Among the Causes of Allergies?" : http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergies.aspx http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergi... Again, we cannot draw a conclusion without doing some science. My only point in bringing this to your attention is so you realize this issue is by no means settled, and no issue can be settled without science. Environmental pollution is a serious problem, one I happen to think should be aggressively addressed. But if we offer a bogus reason, opponents in industry will use that bogus reason to fight a needed change.
lutusp 10y ago
> There is essentially zero doubt about the causative link at this point. Science isn't based on hand-waving -- falsifiable empirical evidence is required. Any number of assumptions like this have fallen by the wayside over the decades, undermined by overlooked correlations that weren't included in the original analysis. The scientific bottom line is easy to state -- is the assumption falsifiable using empirical evidence? If this condition cannot be met, it's not science. Related: https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0?t=37 https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0?t=37 > Some studies will never be run because they would be deeply unethical ... That cannot be offered as an argument to justify dispensing with scientific discipline. It's as simple as that. > ... so we satisfy significance through a preponderance of correlation ... Yes, but that is not science, it's politics or numerology. Using the method you just described, I can prove that there's a connection -- a "link" -- between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2640550/Does-sour-cream-cause-bike-accidents-No-looks-like-does-Graphs-reveal-statistics-produce-false-connections.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2640550/Does-... But, as is often said, correlation is not causation. Does this mean I can claim there's no connection (or a poor connection) between childhood asthma and air pollution? No, for the same reason that you cannot say there is -- it's not scientific. I ask that you think about your position. If we allow public policy to be guided by the kind of pseudoscience you're advocating, if we dispense with the falsifiability criterion, then religious beliefs can substitute for science, and Creationism can be taught as science in public-school science classrooms.
- ced 10y ago
  Can you name one source of pollution suspected of causing health issues, that meets the criterion of falsifiability from evidence? It seems to me that as soon as behaviour X is suspected of killing people, it becomes unethical to do a controlled study that forces some people to live under X. So we're always at the mercy of spurious correlations. Consider cigarettes --- has there been a 40-year controlled study on smoking? Yet, at some point, the observational evidence starts to pile up and one has to make decisions based on that.
  - lutusp 10y ago