Exactly - and I am no different. If you read my previous post, you'll see I don't put the smoking and alcohol research in the same class. In reality, though, all the HUMAN research regarding smoking and lung cancer really IS correlational and this was the gripe the tobacco companies had with the research, despite the fact it went well beyond simple correlational research.
No one seems to be commenting on the actual research, but rather the BBC article's interpretation of it. Are we SURE the research is simple correlational? It might be, but it might not be. I'm concerned we're jumping immediately to conclusions about the quality of the research, perhaps because we're not willing to accept that the results could possibly have any validity? Isn't it just as bad to categorize it as "ridiculous" without having read it as it is to jump to immediate causal conclusions and make major recommendations for lifestyle changes as a result? Dean Subject: RE: BBC NEWS | Health | Drink a day increases cancer risk From: "Marc Carter" <marc.car...@bakeru.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:51:57 -0600 X-Message-Number: 9 ,,If all the data on the carcinogenic and atherosclerotic effects of smoke were correlational, I'd agree with you. But they're not. There are animal models, there are _in vitro_ tissue studies, and there are complex correlational techniques that all point to the health effects of smoking. To claim that smoking "causes" these things is based on far more than simple correlation. That's why I can say smoking "causes" cancer to my students and not be a hypocrite. I cannot say (with the same confidence) that alcohol causes cancer, or reduces heart disease. m ------- Marc L Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Baker University College of Arts & Sciences>> ------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
