Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!cbosgd!ihnp4!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!burl!duke!unc!tim
From: tim@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: "Smoking again! - (nf)"
Message-ID: <5547@unc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Jul-83 17:29:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.5547
Posted: Tue Jul 12 17:29:07 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Jul-83 04:44:05 EDT
References: ihlpf.158
Lines: 66


    There has been a sudden flurry of articles attacking me, so I may
not get to all of them right away.  Here is one from Dave Burris.

            unc!tim writes in net.misc,

                    "By the way, the fact that there
                is no scientific explanation for
                astrological phenomena is also no
                evidence against astrology.  In
                science, observation precedes
                explanation, not the other way
                around..."

            Substitute the words "health damage from passive
        smoking" for the words "astrological phenomena" or
        "astrology", then tell me if this is the same person
        requiring scientific proof from non-smokers.

    All right, Dave, here it is with the substitution made: "The fact
that there is no scientific explanation for health damage from passive
smoking is also no evidence against health damage from passive
smoking.  In science, observation precedes explanation, not the other
way around..." I agree entirely.  However, the lack of evidence
against something is not evidence for something.  It would be a
mistake to pass a law without positive evidence.  Let me try to make
this clearer.

    First, look at the statement of mine you've quoted.  The lack of
an explanation is NOT evidence against astrology.  It may be a reason
why you choose not to believe in it, but it is not evidence AGAINST
it.  There is a huge difference between the lack of evidence for
something and the existence of evidence against something.  I'm sure
that you know this, Dave, so why are you wasting my time?

            Agreed we are not discussing passing a law against
        practicing astrology, and that astrology doesn't cause
        health damage, but let's see some consistency in logic.

    This paragraph is the really telling one.  You state the exact way
in which the cases are different, and then ignore it.  Why?  Because
if you didn't ignore it, you'd have no basis for attacking me?  Be
that as it may, I will attempt to explain the difference more clearly.

    Anyone is free to believe anything that they like for any reason
they like.  However, no one has the right to use their beliefs to
restrict the liberty of others unless there is proof, or at least very
good reason.  Since there is no proof of astrology, I would oppose any
law which required that anyone act in accordance with its dictates in
any way.  Until there is proof that ambient cigarette smoke is
significantly harmful, I oppose any law based on that assumption.
This doesn't mean that you can't believe in the dangers of ambient
smoke (or in astrology, for that matter); it just means that you
shouldn't legislate it.

    There is no inconsistency in my logic here, Dave.  Perhaps I have
not been sufficiently clear, but that is the extent of it.
Honestly, your article looks to me like a half-baked attempt to
discredit me, and nothing else.

______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney

duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill