[asa] Epidemiological science

Identifying and understanding the various types of scientific endeavors can be a useful exercise though it can be misused. It can be helpful, for instance, to understand "historical" and "experimental" science though in most cases this distinction is drawn primarily with the purpose of casting doubt on the results of historical science. That is an erroneous use since the validity of any science, whether historical or not, depends primarily on the availability of relevant data. For many historical events, there is simply not enough data to determine what happened. For many other events, there may be plenty of data and the conclusions are quite credible.

In today's NYTimes Magazine there is a lengthy article taking a look at an example of the type of science underlying the HRT studies. The reversals of opinion on the merits of HRT were quite dramatic and highly publicized. In this article, found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?pagewanted=2&ref=magazine
Gary Taubes digs into a type of science that he calls epidemiological science. He shows the strengths and weaknesses of this type of science which he believes has led to more than a few erroneous conclusions.

Epidemiological science has had some outstanding and important successes, which Taubes lauds. But due to its reliance on identifying correlations rather than causal relationships, it can also lead to signficant misunderstandings. Sometimes no other method is available. It is important to understand the nature of the underlying data and the type of conclusions that can be made.

Net: I'm not a fan of labeling different types of science. I am a fan of understanding the quality and nature of the relevant data and the way in which it is interpreted.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 16 22:07:52 2007