PEEK  
comments_image Comments

Anti-Vaccination Crankery Is Dangerous

So why are major Presidential candidates paying lip service to it?
 
 
Share
 

Seriously, Obama needs to stop with this public-health-damaging nonsense immediately.

...what Megan says in comments is worth elevating here:

And to second (third, fourth, whatever) those above - the science is not inconclusive. But I am willing to concede that this is one of those times when the precise language of scientists (and in particular, statisticians) can become misconstrued. In particular, no study can ever 'disprove' much of anything. All it can do (and many, many studies consistently have, in this case) is fail to find a link. In statistical terms we always call this 'failing to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship.' It's a weird double negative, but it's careful for a reason - we always set up our experiments assuming the thing we're trying to disprove is true. Our conclusion options are to reject the null (and conclude that a relationship exists) or fail to reject the null. We typically shy away from clearly stating that this means conclusively that no relationship exists, since as scientists we're always open to the possibility of being wrong - perhaps another study will come along with better/different methodology and contradict our findings, perhaps someone will have more money and more time and collect more data and contradict our findings, etc. However, all that hemming aside, just like a scientific theory is treated with more confidence than the layman interpretation of the word 'theory,' when numerous studies consistently fail to reject the null hypothesis, most reasonable scientists are comfortable assuming that this means that no relationship exists.

...Clinton too, ack.

Scott Lemieux blogs at Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

 
See more stories tagged with: