Hacker News Reader

Comment by karzeem | Hacker News Reader

Does this kind of reductionism pass for science journalism? I have no idea if cell phones cause cancer. But if I have a model of carcinogenesis and cell phones happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot cause cancer.

Knives are proven to cause stab wounds. A sharpened stick is not a knife. That is not proof that sharpened sticks cannot cause stab wounds.

Edit: apparently the meaning of what I've written varies depending on what you think my motives are. That means I've been unclear. I'm not advocating the precautionary principle. Kind of the opposite, actually. You cannot prove a negative, which means that it is unscientific to use a model (especially one as poorly understood as the one for carcinogenesis) to "prove" that something cannot happen.

View on HN

The point of the article was to dismiss precautionary worry as a reason to believe in the effect.

Unless there is anything pointing towards the phones causing cancer, we shouldn't worry about it.

Consider how afraid we would be of touching anything that hasn't been proved to not cause cancer. People would have anxiety over doing anything, and most of it would be unwarranted.

Of course, considering that there is a bit of evidence pointing towards cell phones causing cancer(even if it's just correlation rather than causation), it may be of worth to consider worrying, but don't worry just because you have no information at all.

The second comment on scientificamerican.com (by richard2010) after the article explains why we should not dismiss precautionary worry.

There are many other ways radiation can affect microbiology besides directly ionizing atoms.

Did you even read the article? What you just said is exactly the initial complaint the author is making about the misapplication of the precautionary principle.

"I have no idea if <pigs can fly>. But if I have a model of <flight in biological animals> and <pigs> happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot <fly>.

<Birds> are proven to <be biological animals capable of flight>. A <pig> is not a <bird>. That is not proof that <pigs> cannot <be biological animals capable of flight>."

Does this make absolutely any sense to you?

I've only had one cup of tea today, so maybe I wrote the opposite of what I think I wrote, but it might also be that your pseudoscientist detector is catching false positives today.

I'm not asserting that cell phones cause cancer, and I'm not asserting that the precautionary principle is wise to apply here. The author writes that the model of carcinogenesis he's selected predicts that cell phones will not cause cancer. He asserts that this is proof that cell phones cannot cause cancer. I'm taking issue with his confidence in making that assertion.

And now for something marginally different:

"I have no idea if <bats can fly>. But if I have a model of <flight in biological animals> and <bats> happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot <fly>."

Notice how if you change what someone is saying, you can make them look silly?

And yes, if you are looking at it from the perspective of deductive reasoning, the statement does make perfect sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com