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