I know that. We have beaten that portion of the debate to death. Where we disagree is in jumping to the conclusion that outdoor exposure could also be harmful. You think we shouldn't do a ban until the jury is in; I disagree, based on prior precedent of smoking being harmful in other situations. I don't see why this disagreement makes me dishonest, it just makes our standards for forming laws different.
I'm saying that extrapolating general data to the specific situation, as you had been doing prior to our debate on the subject, was intellectually dishonest. I wasn't trying to say you are dishonest as a person. If that's how you saw it, my apologies for not making my position clear.
And what you are saying above is a far cry form the "If I smell it, I'm breathing in toxins and therefore I'm in danger" type argument you had presented before.
While your reasoning is still the fallacy of accident (which is applying the general into the specific), at least it isn't a distortion of the facts anymore because you are essentially admitting that you are engaging in that fallacy for the sake of "erring on the side of caution".
That approach is far more accurate than some of the previous arguments I had seen from you in this thread.
Without scientific evidence, how can you know without a doubt that it's indeed the exact opposite situation? That is as equally as preposterous as you claim my position is. Based on your own standard of evidence, you would need conclusive proof before forming such an opinion. Or does that standard only apply to me?
I believe I have been careful to not say that there is
no danger presented from fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments, only that the risk presented by such a situation is indeed minimal. This can be garnered by the evidence which suggests that the risks of SHS are correlated with two factors: prolonged exposures and enclosed environments. In essence, the evidence you've presented, which
does show that duration and enclosed environments are a factor in the dangers of SHS
supports my claims that the effect is likely to be minimal for fleeting exposures in open environments.
The issue at hand with regard to my argument is that the thing being supported in my argument is a negative. It is untestable because of that. There will never be a study that can state "There are no negative effects of fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments". The negative (or null hypothesis) can only be supported by a lack of evidence for the positive (Which would be the hypothesis that you are promoting: that fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments are dangerous).
There is inductive evidence to suggest that my argument has merit (the existence of "acceptable" levels of toxins in an environment, the correlation and proportional nature between dangers of SHS and length of exposure and enclosed environments, etc).
I have admitted that I am unable to "prove" my position because it can only be supported by inductive arguments. I can only show that it makes sense to assume it is correct.
No matter how many studies are done on fleeting exposures to SHS in an open environment, the only conclusion that will
ever be achieved is "There is no evidence that suggests that fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments is dangerous" because that is
all that can be determined by such research.It wil never be a case where one can say "There is
no danger from fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments."
What I've been asking you for research-wise
can exist. What you've been asking me for
cannot exist.
Because of the position I am taking would be called a tentative acceptance of the null hypothesis, which is the scientifically correct approach to take when the evidence does not directly support the hypothesis, I cannot provide proof of my position outside of the fact that there is a lack of evidence supporting the hypothesis, which is what I have been doing.
Because the position you have been taking would be called tentative acceptance of the hypothesis, which is the scientifically correct approach to take when the evidence
does directly support the hypothesis, you
should be capable of providing proof of your position by showing the evidence that exists which supports the hypothesis.
The standards I am working with are the scientific method. Since you are taking the position that you are taking, there is a certain standard of evidence that you must adhere to in order to be scientifically "correct" in making that claim. Since I am taking the position that I am taking, there is a certain standard of evidence that I must adhere to in order to be scientifically correct in my claim.
In this instance, I
have adhered to the standards required for my claim (a lack of direct evidence supporting the hypothesis), while you have not adhered to the standards required for yours (the existence of direct evidence supporting the hypothesis.
The fact that you cannot acknowledge that this too is an assumption lacking in evidence shows some lack of logic on your side as well.
The problem here is that the lack of evidence is in fact the support required to make my assumptions logically and scientifically correct.
As was established before, each person is different. Some people can die from merely smelling a toxin or allergen. Some people can smoke their whole lives and never get cancer; some people can develop cancer from SHS. The bottom line is, exposure should always be a choice.
Your bottom line is an impossible standard. Both for the allergens
and the SHS. Even if a person makes all of the correct choices, they will still be exposed to these things. They can only take precautions to minimize their risk for exposure.
As I said earlier, I would support making it so that a portion of the parks and beaches in a region are smoke-free to assist people in taking such precautions. I'd even support making the majority of them smoke free. But a uniform prohibition of smoking at all parks is something I do not support.
I agree about the second part... toxicity has medical uses, but not always.
But the point was that there exists an acceptable level for almost every type of toxin.
I am well aware (after you pointed it out) that I don't have evidence for the outdoor claim, but I am comfortable making the educated assumption based on what SHS does in other situations. I would rather side with caution given prior precedent, and I believe that's what the different municipalities are doing.
If your awareness stems from my pointing it out, that validates the claims I had made in the process of pointing it out, Orion.
As I said earlier, I wasn't trying to call
you dishonest (the above admission itself indicates that you , as a person, are honest and supports my existing hypothesis that you, as a person, are honorable and worthy of my respect). I apologize for that having come across as such. Teh point I had been trying to make was that your argumetn was "intellectually dishonest". When I say that, I don't presume that the perosn is always making such an argument willfully.
I've made intellectually dishonest arguments inadvertently myself in the past, but I consider myself to be an honest person.
Admittedly, I often make the mistake of thinking that others perceive things the same way that I do. I've called my own positions hypocritical in the past, for example, and have often admitted that I was ignorant about a subject. I don't perceive these as pejoratives, nor do I consider an intellectually dishonest argument that was inadvertent to be a defect of character.
But I need to be more mindful about how others perceive these things. For that inconsideration, I apologize.
Right, and I don't agree. That is the crux of this debate.
True. My belief is that positive action taken about a positive claim should be supported by evidence. A lack of action on a positive claim should be the default status when the claim is not supported by evidence.
This is because I feel adherence to that basic standard is the best way to remain objective on an issue. My positions often follow the standards set up by the scientific method.
We disagree on that, and you are correct that this is the crux of the debate.
Thus, my position shifts toward my approach being more objective and less prone to being tainted by personal bias.
I think maybe you are annoyed because of what this implies for individual rights, but you are expressing that frustration in the form of intellectual attacks. Simply acknowledging that we have a difference of opinion in approach would suffice, at this point.
I hope I've explained my approach sufficiently above. It is not frustration that drives me. It is actually a flaw in myself, which I am working on, where I assume that people perceive certain things the same way that I do. I did not intend fro my comments to be attacks on you. I made the errenous assumption that you would view my comments the same way that I would view them if directed at me.
Again, for that I apologize.
I rejected it because it is impractical on a policy level to create and enforce. The pubic shouldn't have to choose between a healthy side and a side with SHS exposure. The people smoking should go elsewhere. In fact, it's not even that hard to exit a park and go to the street level where smoking is still allowed.
I don't agree that this is impractical at all, and I don't believe you have provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that it is impractical. Enforcement would actually be easier with separate smoke-free and smoking parks because there would be fewer parks where enforcement would need to occur.
I don't see how designating some parks as smoking and others as smoke-free is impractical. Again, I'm not talking sections of the same parks, but entirely separate parks.
I discovered another implication as well, at least for the pacific northwest. Another reason Vancouver banned smoking in parks and beaches is because in the summer time the risk for forest fires is high, and many have been started by people tossing their butts into the woods.
This would make sense with parks, but why beaches?
If I was dishonest, then so were you for making the shellfish comparison in the first place. I simply went with an analogy that you brought up. You asked why shellfish shouldn't be banned since it also harms people, and I gave you reasons: barely anyone is affected, the deaths are less than 100 per year, and people have measures like epi-pens to provide some protection for accidental exposure. Shellfish does not present a universal risk to people as smoking does. I believe this conclusively debunks your comparison to shellfish. Apples and oranges.
I disagree with this assessment for multiple reasons.
1. The use of the shellfish analogy was to describe how I am personally affected by having to engage in the same types of avoidance behaviors that non-smokers would have to engage in for much more pressing reasons.
2. My analogy was primarily related to the "public health" argument where fleeting exposures to SHS in outdoor environments is being treated as a danger, even in the
absence of supporting evidence for that hypothesis. Also the claim that fleeting exposures to SHS in open areas is dangerous to all is
not accurate at all. You even talked about how there are
smokers who can smoke all of their lives without developing cancer. Not everyone who is exposed to SHS develops a health problem from it. Therefore, we can accurately conclude that the risks associated with SHS are not
really universal. They are very much akin to the risks of shellfish allergies because shellfish allergies
can develop at any time in one's life. Essentially everyone has some degree of risk of developing such an allergy. Obviously some people are more prone to it than others. Just because you've never been allergic to shellfish before doesn't mean that the next time you eat it you will not have an allergy attack. And I also provided evidence supporting my comparison.
3. Just because the analogy is not
perfectly identical does not mean it is not a legitimate comparison, especially when it was given in the context of what I personally have to deal with regarding
my allergy, which place
me at a very high risk of eventually becoming one of those 100 people.
cont'd in next post