CIGARETTES AND LUNG CANCER
Seems to me that Dr. Piney rolls three fal- lacies into one, i.e., the two varieties of ignoratio elenclri known as argumentant ad ignorantiam and argumentum ad hominem respectively, as well as a circulus in probando. As a result, my questions stand exactly where they stood a fortnight ago (Spectator, August 23). I would not presume w suggest that they are unanswerable; on the contrary, Dr. Piney would help us greatly by answering them, instead of supply- ing the facts which actually prompted them.
I am aware that the disease under discussion is bronchial carcinoma. The sole reason why I used the term 'lung cancer,' of which Dr. Piney now com- plains, is that he did so in the first place (Spectator, August 16). He goes on to say that 'the intensity of carcinogenetic action on the bronchi will be the same in the two groups of cigarette smokers,' that is, inhalers and non-inhalers. This, however, is a proposition which requires the very explanation it professes to provide.
X: 'Last night I sat on a bench in the park, and suddenly God sat down beside me.'
Y : 'You're lying.'
X: 'Don't be silly, God wouldn't sit next to a liar, would he?'
Inhalers obviously get far more smoke into their bronchi than non-inhalers. Why don't the statistical results mirror this difference? Not even 'the nebulous concept of "tissue predispositioe ' helps us here.
As for Dr. Pincy's reluctance to quote parallel data from the other numerical investigations he originally referred to, 1 am not myself entirely unused to dis- pensing scientific information in a shortened and tolerably comprehensible form and, with great respect, I would assure Dr. Piney that the attempt is worth while, especially if one's argument hinges on it.
Finally, let me say that I am not out to defend smoking. I am interested in causality.—Yours faith- fully,
HANS KELLER
50 Willow Road, NW3
Previous page
