Anecdotal Evidence vs. Scientific

[Jman8]

Ever seen Conan O'Brien bits where he takes a subject in the news, and shows a montage of clips from local and national news programs and they are all saying the same thing, word for word? I'd link it here, but is secondary to point I'm making, which I think fits in with News, as I am linking to Time article from Aug. 2011 to help make the point.

I did a search on "anecdotal evidence vs. scientific" and was looking for one thing, but found another that I think is interesting. I was looking for cases of when anecdotal evidence is saying one thing (i.e. eCigs are relatively harmless) and scientific evidence concludes otherwise (i.e. vaping is hazardous to your health). Not that science has weighed in on this with substantial studies, but I truly believe it will weigh in and will conclude that vaping is harmful. But not due to 'true science.' Instead due to heavily biased science, that is manipulated by human greed and corruption. I very much hope I'm mistaken on this and if I am, I'll be sure to note that wherever possible. But as I see it, the "we don't know what's actually in these things" will lead to a mass manipulation that amounts to, "we now know and it is very bad."

Anyway, on the search mentioned in previous paragraph, which I invite others to do on their own, I first went to Wikipedia link that was only for "anecdotal evidence" and in section titled "support for anecdotal evidence" it was noting "there are many centenarians who are heavy smokers." Which I sort knew already (I thought it as many who are moderate smokers), but found Time article from Aug. 2011, that is right on this topic. I think that is a good read as it seems to contain a bunch of double speak (bias) to help explain why scientific based evidence (i.e. smoking is hazardous) isn't showing up in these persons. And concludes with:

So in case you’re not among the lucky ones with golden long-life genes, you’d probably be wise to hedge your bets. It’s still a smart idea to eat right, move your body regularly, avoid smoking and drink in moderation. That’s advice that will last a lifetime.

Eating, exercise and drinking all get permission for being done in moderation, but not smoking. Gotta avoid that one.

Even more fascinating is when I updated the search terms to "anecdotal evidence vs. scientific, smoking" as wording for the resulting articles reads almost word for word the same in paragraphs that speak to smoking. Which reminded me of the Conan O'Brien segments after I got thru reading 3 of them, and so I went to three more that are saying that same thing.

Gotta keep that hazardous message alive and well, I reckon. Being a moderate smoker myself, and seeing that many centenarians also were moderate smokers, does lead to another conclusion, that may be anecdotal, while having evidence that is certainly based in fact.

 

[vaperature]

The one I love is that e-cigs "could be a gateway to traditional tobacco products." I see this in just about every e-cig article written. Even though it makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying driving a Ferrari is a gateway to using public transporation. Or that eating Skittles is a gateway to eating those yucky pink candies that taste like Pepto Bismal. I'm just trying to imagine the logic of it: oh gee, I'm not satisfied with my inexpensive, reusable personal vaping device or my choice of a thousand flavors of e-juice: I'm going to switch to a ten dollar a day habit that has two choices, regular and menthol.

 

[vaperature]

Here's an interesting article that I just now stumbled upon

Smoking Simulacra : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 

[Kent C]

The one I love is that e-cigs "could be a gateway to traditional tobacco products." I see this in just about every e-cig article written. Even though it makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying driving a Ferrari is a gateway to using public transporation. Or that eating Skittles is a gateway to eating those yucky pink candies that taste like Pepto Bismal. I'm just trying to imagine the logic of it: oh gee, I'm not satisfied with my inexpensive, reusable personal vaping device or my choice of a thousand flavors of e-juice: I'm going to switch to a ten dollar a day habit that has two choices, regular and menthol.

Lol... actually there are some people that would like to think that is true - those promoting the bullet train in the deserts of California, for example. Great post on each point!!

 

[rothenbj]

Actually, e cigs have a great potential for cutting off the pipeline of new smokers. Let's face it, a certain percentage of youth are going to rebel- smoke, drink and do drugs. Some do 1 of 3, some all three. Some will go to cigarettes and switch to e cigs, particularly if they see their peers vaping and hear about interesting flavors. Others will start vaping and may see peers smoking and trying that. Which group is most likely to return to their original choice? My guess would be vapers, but it would make a lot more interesting study than a CDC cumulative "body count".

 

[Fast and Furious]

Let's don't forget .................. "Da' Chillun'". Always.......... the same cry, "Fo' Da' Chillun'". Moochella started it and the parrots continue.

Tom

 

[Jman8]

I wish I could emphasize more the idea that the science*, I predict, will end up being against vaping. I would enjoy being incorrect about this, but I truly believe that the philosophical basis of scientific materialism is biased in such a way that not finding inflated harm / risks in vaping is virtually impossible. Add in prestigious institutes, i.e. ACS, and political movements, i.e. anti-smoking and the stakes are just too darn high to not find something, anything to hype up the harm of eCigs.

And I have to put an asterisk by "science" because IMO, actual science doesn't carry this bias. Actual science isn't against smoking, nor is it for it. It strikes me as exactly neutral and interested in observing, testing, studying, measuring, reporting. But when the inevitable hypothesis becomes one of bias and is loaded going in, it then becomes study after study to support the theory of harm, or philosophy of attack.

Hence in my worldview and understanding (of science, knowledge) smoking hasn't been proven harmful or hazardous. I see the 'evidence' for this as cooked, filtered, manipulated, and in a word (heavily) biased. And based on recent quote I read from S. Glantz (in NY Times Op Ed), I fully anticipate evidence is forthcoming with regards to vaping/vapor that is cooked, filtered, manipulated and heavily biased, to 'show' vapor is harmful, and must be treated politically and medically as a hazard to human health.

Even if the overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence concludes otherwise.
Not to mention the other scientific studies that do demonstrate relative harmlessness.