Our Philosophy vs The Real World [Archive]

sheb

21st June 2006, 12:51

"our philosophy vs the real world" - i saw this thread-title and a lot of vague thoughts came in my mind.
the philosophy behind shorinji kempo contains a lot of "good" things. can it work in our "real world" (is harmony and peace on earth possible? is there a way to get these things?)? ... and it's a very big and honorable goal to form the ideal world - but also if you don't try to change the people around yourself but only yourself, it's perhaps impossible (because you are a part of the "system"*). one of my "life-basics" is "impossible is nothing", but ...?
for me the "living" philosophy in shorinji kempo was one of the main reasons to start with. i wonder whether it's the same for most other kenshis around the world? ... and if the philosophy was important in the beginning, is it possible that its importance changes to a lower level while training-years for different reasons? (i have observed that a lot of people which are very open-minded in their youth lose this quality more and more by becoming older (reasons are for example dissapointments, setbacks) ... ok, i'm 28 - so i haven't real experiences, but perhaps the older ones here can say something ...). what if someone says: "i only want to learn shorinji as a martial art - its philosophy isn't interesting for me." ... can he train shorinji kempo also or would you (as branchmaster) exclude him (i read in another thread that some senseis make interviews with beginners - what would be reasons for excluding someone? ... a questions that also goes in the direction whether shorinji kempo can change people ...). another aspect is whether there is a necessity to adapt the philosophy to our changing society (can it be seen as "old"/"not up-to-date" in future or perhaps today yet?). a example could be that the kongo zen part was taken off (the beginning of the end of the philosophical part?). ... as i know there are some branches which were excluded from wsko or which broke with wsko for reasons i don't know. how big is the probability that in some decades shorinji kempo has different styles like the most other martial arts (and by this it will lose its philosophy perhaps)? by introducing the unified mark for example, wsko want's to show what the "true" shorinji kempo is (i think) - but are too much regulations perhaps the false way?
these are questions i have in my mind and i will think about. surely they all can be found in others threads, but i thought it could be interesting not only for me ...

*ps:
i remember the matrix-film: the machines had created an ideal world for the mankind. but they changed it to our "bad" world because it didn't work - the people died ... do you think that we need a world with a lot of efforts - that we can't live in a paradise?

Kari MakiKuutti

21st June 2006, 13:05

How cool would that be for the branch masters to do an embu together?

:)
Maybe randori would be more interesting? :)

Nina

21st June 2006, 13:18

for me the "living" philosophy in shorinji kempo was one of the main reasons to start with. i wonder whether it's the same for most other kenshis around the world? ... and if the philosophy was important in the beginning, is it possible that its importance changes to a lower level while training-years for different reasons?

When I started Shorinji Kempo, my motivation hadn`t really to do with the philosophy, because I only had a vague idea about martial arts in general.
Now I think that the philosophical aspects are important points for my motivation to train and i also have the feeling that they become more important the longer i practice.

another aspect is whether there is a necessity to adapt the philosophy to our changing society (can it be seen as "old"/"not up-to-date" in future or perhaps today yet?). a example could be that the kongo zen part was taken off (the beginning of the end of the philosophical part?). ...
How do you mean that? I don`t understand why it shouldn`t be up-to-date, to make the world more better.....In my eyes the philosophy has nothing to do with ages, but i can imagine that especially beginners who hear for example the oath for the first time think that "to create an ideal world" is a very high-flown aim and maybe unrealistic, of course it depends how you define it....
I think that it is important that you try to make the world better,also if you do just little things. If you are a good example for others maybe someone follows your example and so on......

luar

21st June 2006, 13:55

what if someone says: "i only want to learn shorinji as a martial art - its philosophy isn't interesting for me." ... can he train shorinji kempo also or would you (as branchmaster) exclude him (i read in another thread that some senseis make interviews with beginners - what would be reasons for excluding someone? ...

What you are saying is the equivalent of me moving to France and choosing never to speak a word of French. How then can I say know French culture? I don't think I could live there for very long in such a vacum.

sheb

22nd June 2006, 10:08

How do you mean that?
i think every era has its own sight on life and ethics and its own rules. so every philosophy/thought depends on the society/time in which it was developed. ok - things like "help each others" or "create a better world" or ... should be right in future too, but i can imagine that there could be changes ... or that the philosophical background becomes more and more unimportant.

What you are saying is the equivalent of me moving to France and choosing never to speak a word of French. How then can I say know French culture? I don't think I could live there for very long in such a vacum.
i don't think that this is the same ... for someone like you or me it is right probably, but for someone who only wants to learn to fight surely not. perhaps he will never reach a "level" like someone who is interested in the philosophy and the way of budo, but for his own sight it would be ok. ... and there are a lot of people which would say that they know the french culture i think.

luar

22nd June 2006, 13:34

So here once again we revisit the topic if whether there the techniques and philosophy can ever be seperated.

i don't think that this is the same ... for someone like you or me it is right probably, but for someone who only wants to learn to fight surely not. perhaps he will never reach a "level" like someone who is interested in the philosophy and the way of budo, but for his own sight it would be ok. ... and there are a lot of people which would say that they know the french culture i think.

Maybe not but to me if the kenshi is honest with their teachers, respects those ahead of them, does not disdain those behind thes, gives as well as receives help, cooperates, and gives something of themselves, then despite what they are saying, they are doing the philosophy. If they cannot do these things and are only there, as you say to learn to fight, then from this perspective not only do I believe they will not last but they are surely wasting their time. There are plenty of other effective styles that does not adhere to such ideals and would be a quicker path for them to achieve their goals.

Ade

22nd June 2006, 13:38

Dear Ade sensei,

Re your visit planned for November 2006, the best airline is Middle East Airline (MEA), providing better service than British Airways (BA). They both have direct flights from heathrow costing about 400 pounds for a return ticket.

Unfortunately the club cannot afford funding the flight fare but it can cover all other expenses for any other visiting Kenshi (whose visit would be most welcome). Accomodation would be arranged at mine, and at other Kenshi's houses
I look forward to hearing from you soon,

Samer Majed
Branch Master
Beirut Dojo

Gassho

Too much talking........not enough doing.........get on with it.......so many dojos........so little time.

Kesshu

Adrian

sheb

22nd June 2006, 14:11

So here once again we revisit the topic if whether there the techniques and philosophy can ever be seperated.

Maybe not but to me if the kenshi is honest with their teachers, respects those ahead of them, does not disdain those behind thes, gives as well as receives help, cooperates, and gives something of themselves, then despite what they are saying, they are doing the philosophy.
these are a good points ...

JL.

22nd June 2006, 17:50

Gassho!

Hmm, prices from Berlin start at €300,- (return) including taxes with Alitalia. Czech Airlines is also rather cheap. MEA charges twice that amount.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

tony leith

22nd June 2006, 19:18

Ade

22nd June 2006, 20:03

luar

23rd June 2006, 13:48

Long time no post, I've been preoccupied with non virtual SK stuff.

For me what's appealing about Sk as a philosophy is that it encourages me to spend my time at least trying to improve myself, rather than bewailing the fact that I have sinned against some arbitrarily defined notion of the ideal, especially one handed down from agrarian cultures in the middle east several thousand years ago. If it means anything it means engaging with the here and now.

As a person who is basically fairly sceptical of 'ideal world's, I have had to think quite long and hard about what I mean when I say these words. The historical precedents for attempts to create 'ideal worlds' by fiat from the French revolution are not encouraging (see Edmund Burke's 'reflections on the revolution in France' for a more eloquent account of the problems with trying to make a society over again).

Fortunately for my intellectual self respect, I think kaiso was explicitly arguing against a model of social change which involved imposing one's will on populations wholesale. I once heard mizuno Sensei say that trying to create an 'ideal world' has to start with creating an ideal world for yourself and those around you - ie at the level of the individual and their relationships.
I think seeing it in those terms helps to prevent it just being an absraction.

Tony leith

This is why I think the phrase "ideal world" was a poor choice of words. "Ideal World" is to me incredibly subjective, personal, promote duality and has a "cult-like" taste to it. We all have our own individual idea of what an ideal world should be but the problem is that I doubt if we are all on the same page. I believe the conflicts we have seen in facism, communism and religious fundamentalism are all driven by this.

Instead I would have opted to say a "better world" since I feel this is much more democratic and communal. I can easily argue with someone about what an "ideal world" is but not so much in describing a "better world." Yes its symantics but I believe such things do make a difference.

Tripitaka of AA

23rd June 2006, 14:07

semantics.

luar

23rd June 2006, 14:11

semantics.

penalty kick

Richard Codling

23rd June 2006, 16:12

I think kaiso was explicitly arguing against a model of social change which involved imposing one's will on populations wholesale. I once heard mizuno Sensei say that trying to create an 'ideal world' has to start with creating an ideal world for yourself and those around you - ie at the level of the individual and their relationships.

This is along the lines of some thoughts I've been entertaining for a while. You have to understand that everyone's idea of an ideal world is different.

For example, the Scottish Executive's idea of an ideal world is one that contains tobacco smoke free pubs, clubs and restaurants. Non smokers may well agree as they like being able to go for a drink and not come back smelling like an ashtray. Smokers may well disagree as come the winter, they'll have to stand outside in our delightful winter weather - far from ideal in their world.

The key is understanding why different people act in different ways, and looking for the good in their motivations.

Ade, gonna have to pass on the trip to the Middle East, I need to get to Sweden first.

JL.

23rd June 2006, 16:23

Gassho!

As a matter of fact the German oath says "eine Welt in Glück und Frieden" = a world in happiness and peace. A better choice indeed, I suppose. I don't know what the original says, though.
And the German oath has other weaknesses.

I'd also like to use this opportunity to suggest a certain change in posting habits: please don't use the "Quote"-option to quote whole posts, especially not the last one before Your own. It's not helpful as context and very bothersome for the readers. Instead please quote what exactly You're referring to or just use the title "Re. XY's last post" or something like that. Thank You very much.

One last point (I can't help it, or actually I don't want to :p ), in my very humble opinion smoking restrictions are ideal for smokers, too, even if they don't think so (right away).

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

sheb

24th June 2006, 14:40

Too much talking........not enough doing.........get on with it.......so many dojos........so little time.
i would like to come with you to beirut. probably i won't have enough money, but ... perhaps you can write (pm or thread) if you know when - so i can think about again ...

David Dunn

26th June 2006, 07:31

One last point (I can't help it, or actually I don't want to :p ), in my very humble opinion smoking restrictions are ideal for smokers, too, even if they don't think so (right away).

It most certainly isn't good for anybody. The idea that it is alright for the state to intervene in the private lives of its citizens is A Very Dangerous Thing. Smokers and non-smokers alike should oppose a state-imposed smoking ban. If your particular establishment decides to have a smoke-free environment, fine, and vice-versa. It should be the right of citizens to make their own choices, even if you don't like them. If you smoke, and like smoking, then puff away. I'm seriously tempted to start smoking again just so that I can disobey the ban. In my not so humble opinion, it's exceptionally worrying that so many people (including smokers) have supported the state using 'health' as a big stick to beat the populace with. Pretty soon we'll have a health authority that will refuse to treat people that don't follow a prescribed lifestyle.

If you care to look into the facts, you might be surprised to find that secondary smoking being a health hazard is largely not true. Despite the public perception, the World Health Organisation's survey of cancer found that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke are "statistically insignificant."

Ade

26th June 2006, 07:51

Utter rubbish.

Smokers make my clothes stink, my eyes sting and me have a tight chest and a hacking cough in the morning.

They have the right to smoke as much as I have the right to spray them with pig manure, (which interestingly has much the same effects, I know because I used to work on a farm.)

Smoking is a filthy smelly dangerous addiction that pollutes other people's atmosphere, the selfish always trot out the "it's my right to smoke near you" line.

Put simply when did your rights become more important than mine?

Feck off and poison yourself somewhere else.

Adrian

JL.

26th June 2006, 09:43

Gassho!

2nded (in more polite words ;) ).

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

stevenm

26th June 2006, 14:54

http://www.davidgregory.org/arse_elbow.htm

David Dunn

26th June 2006, 14:55

Who are you talking to Steve?

stevenm

26th June 2006, 15:01

Who are you talking to Steve?

Anyone who will bite Dave

sheb

27th June 2006, 11:54

Fortunately for my intellectual self respect, I think kaiso was explicitly arguing against a model of social change which involved imposing one's will on populations wholesale. i think there are enough examples in history which show that this ("imposing one's will on populations wholesale") wouldn't work ...

I once heard mizuno Sensei say that trying to create an 'ideal world' has to start with creating an ideal world for yourself and those around you - ie at the level of the individual and their relationships.
I think seeing it in those terms helps to prevent it just being an absraction.probably this is the best way (and the only one that works?) and like i tried to say in my first post, already at this level it can be very difficult i think. ... and i suppose if you are successful you can try to involve more and more people.
a very important point in my opinion - "to prevent it just being an abstraction".

Smokers may well disagree as come the winter, they'll have to stand outside in our delightful winter weather - far from ideal in their world.

The key is understanding why different people act in different ways, and looking for the good in their motivations.
surely "ideal world" is a relative term and too simple. probably an "ideal world" is not possible because there are always different views and it isn't possible to satisfy all people. perhaps it is better to say that "ideal world" means the best compromise between the most people to get the biggest approach of satisfaction of all people? (too much superlatives? ... ;) )

JL.

27th June 2006, 12:48

Gassho!

[…]perhaps it is better to say that "ideal world" means the best compromise between the most people to get the biggest approach of satisfaction of all people? (too much superlatives? ... ;) )Hmm, I'm not so sure about that last part (with the rest I wholeheartedly agree). It sounds too much like "the greater good for the greater number", which is, I think, a description of the way to a dictatorship of the majority.
In any case this is probably an unsolvable problem and IMHO the only sensible thing to even try is to improve the world according to one's own abilities, which mostly means oneself and one's close surroundings.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

sheb

27th June 2006, 14:11

It sounds too much like "the greater good for the greater number", which is, I think, a description of the way to a dictatorship of the majority.ok - of course everybody should have the possibility to live like he wants to live (as long as he doesn't "disturb" others). the point i meant was regarding to our whole society (our "world") - there are compromises necessary i think.

luar

27th June 2006, 14:27

judepeel

27th June 2006, 16:33

Originally Posted by David Dunn

If you care to look into the facts, you might be surprised to find that secondary smoking being a health hazard is largely not true. Despite the public perception, the World Health Organisation's survey of cancer found that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke are "statistically insignificant."

My brother was asked to sign something for a leading chain of pubs stating he wouldn't sue them is he got lung cancer.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4998

Personally it's not just the health risks, I find smoke very irritating you wake up with the taste in your mouth, your hair smelling and your eyes sore. If you smoke near me you are affecting my evening out. You can go outside and have a fag, but I have to cut my evening short and go home to avoid it. The majority of us are non-smokers why should we have to put up with it?

(I'll get down from my soap box now)

JL.

27th June 2006, 17:28

Gassho!

Thanks, Raul-san and Jude-san. :)
I especially like this one:

"If factories were putting out fumes that caused that level of death, they would be closed down."Kesshu,
______ Jan.

Ade

27th June 2006, 21:14

If you care to look into the facts, you might be surprised to find that secondary smoking being a health hazard is largely not true. Despite the public perception, the World Health Organisation's survey of cancer found that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke are "statistically insignificant."

Gassho

What evidence is there that passive smoking kills?

Alok Jha
Thursday November 18, 2004
The Guardian

Well, common sense for a start. But that won't normally do for scientists. So how about a worldwide review of research in the field, pulled together and published by 40 epidemiologists for the World Health Organisation in June, that concluded that secondhand smoke increased the risk of lung cancer by 25%?
"We have quite a body of evidence building up over the last 20 years," says Sinead Jones, director of the tobacco control resource centre at the British Medical Association (BMA).
All of which makes it more perplexing that the government did not ban smoking in public places in this week's health white paper, despite evidence presented by 13 medical royal colleges, the BMA and others.
"One of the most interesting studies is autopsy evidence from wives of men who smoked," says Jones. "These women actually died of other, unrelated diseases, but they did lung biopsies and found pre-cancerous changes very similar to those seen in smoking-related disease."
But Simon Clark, director of the smokers' lobby Forest, says anti-smoking campaigners have not proved their case. "All we ever hear are estimates, calculations and statistics," he said in a recent statement. "Where is the hard evidence that people are dying of passive smoking?"
Last year, research published in the British Medical Journal even seemed to back Forest's claims. The universities of California and New York analysed data from more than 35,000 people who had never smoked, but lived with a spouse who did. Their paper seemed to find no link between passive smoking and death from lung cancer or heart disease.
Jones says that the paper had been misinterpreted. "They [the smoking lobby] are always entitled to say 'we believe that it doesn't cause lung cancer', and I can believe that the Earth is flat. However, believing that doesn't make it so."

analysing the data

What is the bigger picture?
The study appeared in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and was based on research by James Enstrom, from the University of California, and Geoffrey Kabat, from the State University of New York. They analysed data from the American Cancer Society's (ACS) Cancer Prevention Study, which was started in 1959 and ended in 1998. In total 118,094 Californian adults had been studied, and Enstrom and Kabat focused on the 35,561 nonsmokers who were married to partners who smoked.

The researchers chose this subgroup of nonsmokers because they reasoned that being married to smokers meant that this group was exposed to secondhand smoke. According to their analysis of this group, passive smoking (by inhaling a spouse's cigarette smoke) wasn't significantly associated with an increased risk of death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. From this finding, the study's authors, suggest that passive smoking cannot cause the 30 per cent increased risk of coronary heart disease that it is currently believed to cause. Instead, they argue that it might cause a much smaller effect. However, they couldn't rule out the possibility of a 20 per cent increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

But the American Cancer Society (ACS) - the organisation whose data was used - has strongly criticised the study. The analysis was funded by the tobacco industry and supported by the now defunct Centre for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) - a group funded and founded by cigarette companies. "We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems it literally failed to get a government grant," said Dr. Michael J. Thun, vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research. "The ACS welcomes thoughtful, independent peer review of our data, but this study is neither reliable nor independent."

The data for the 35,561 nonsmokers who were married to smokers was obtained from the ACS Cancer Prevention Study I (CPS-I). The ACS was aware of Dr. Enstrom's work and is said to have repeatedly advised him that using the data to "study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results". The society points out that the analysis was based on only a tiny subset - 10 per cent - of the CPS-I data and that it was scientifically flawed in a number of ways.

The most serious design flaw, the society argues, is that there's an inability to distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who weren't. This is because:

Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone came into contact with it, whether they were married to a smoker or not.
No information was collected on the sources of secondhand smoke other than spousal smoking.
No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26 years.
On average, participants were 52 years old when enrolled on the study. Many spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit smoking or ended the marriage during the 38-year follow up, yet their surviving partners are still classified being passive smokers in the analysis.
Much of the follow up relates to older age groups where the effects of many environmental risk factors become less apparent.
More than 50 studies on the health impacts of passive smoking have been carried out over the past 25 years, including a number of landmark studies providing significant evidence of passive smoking risks. Such work includes research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health and the ACS.

Notable research includes a study published in the BMJ in 1997, conducted by Hackshaw and colleagues, which analysed 37 passive smoking studies and found a 24 per cent increase in lung cancer among people living with smokers. In fact, said the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), "Tobacco specific carcinogens found in the blood of non-smokers provided clear evidence of the effect of passive smoking."

Additionally, far more reliable data was obtained in the ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) study, which was about 10 times larger than Dr. Enstrom's work. They enrolled patients in the 1980s, when fewer exposures to tobacco smoke outside the home existed, and therefore far less "background noise", and follow-up has been much better (over 99 per cent). The results unquestionably show an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease.

So the original premise is that we have no right to question this ludicrous assertion or worry, indeed why don't we just roll over and accept that filthy addict weak self centred smokers have a greater set of human rights than the rest of us and the absolute unquestionable right to gamble with our collective health as part of an exercise of those rights?

Or is the arguement that we should chose this issue to make a stand on over government control as a way of showing that we're not worker drones to be ordered around.

But then wouldn't we, in the U.K. be better off making a stand about the preposterous assertion that we need to update our nuclear weapons just in case?

"Daily Telegraph 22/06/2006 By George Jones, Political Editor
Posted on 06/21/2006 8:02:27 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Brown in favour of updating Trident
Gordon Brown promised last night to approve the updating of Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent in an attempt to show that a Labour government led by him would not swing back to the Left or be "soft" on defence.
In a move that will anger Left-wing MPs, the Chancellor told business leaders and financiers that as Prime Minister he would be "strong" in fighting terrorism, supporting the Armed Forces and "retaining our independent nuclear deterrent".
Treasury sources said Mr Brown, who in the past has been criticised for squeezing the defence budget, would assure military chiefs that as Chancellor or Prime Minister he would find the necessary resources to ensure the long term future of Britain's nuclear deterrent.
The cost of replacing the Trident fleet of nuclearpowered submarines together with a new missile system is put at between £10 billion and £25 billion."

Just a thought, pick a decent fight rather than backing such an obvious loser.

Happy trails.

Ade

PS What I would suggest though is that you don't smoke at me or my family because a good solid right hook to the face and a proper full on row often offends.

conskeptical

27th June 2006, 21:26

it's very easy to jump on the smoking-is-not-cool bandwagon.

just because it's bad for your health doesn't mean you have to make second-class citizens out of those people who a) smoke because they like it and b) smoke because they cannot stop.

and as for people who smoke in other people's faces: some people are just discourteous. smokers or nay. some of us should be grown up enough to politely tell them so. (and anything less than smoking in your face really isn't an issue, unless you're deliberately seeking out smoke-filled environments to complain in)

my general feeling is that whenever you see the pendulum hurtling over to the other side, do your best to dampen it, otherwise what will it do? swing right back to where it started from. everybody loses.

JL.

27th June 2006, 22:26

Gassho!

anything less than smoking in your face really isn't an issue, unless you're deliberately seeking out smoke-filled environments to complain inWhy isn't it? Smoke has a range of 10m and more (and if this sounds like I'm talking about a weapon – I am). I have never heard of anyone seeking out smoke-filled environments to complain in, maybe that's a British habit? On the other hand I have found it impossible to evade smoke-filled environments many times in my life – hallways, stairs, stations, etc. When smoking is prohibited in a building it usually means that the smokers are standing right outside the door where everyone has to pass them by.
Now why do so many people, including a lot of non-smokers, think that this is my fault? That I'm intolerant because I don't want my health to be diminished by cigarette smoke? Why do I have to leave everytime someone else wants to smoke instead of them going away? In any comparable case, (I liked the pig manure ;) ) I would have the right to defend myself, even using physical force. In this case the smoker apparently has the right to hurt me. Why?

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

David Dunn

27th June 2006, 23:11

It hasn't got anything to do with smoking itself. It is about the state legislating what we can do in our private lives. The separation of private and public life is fundamental to a free society. No one has a right to smoke, and no one has a right to be protected from irritation and offence by other people. If you don't want someone to smoke near you, then ask them not to, or don't go near them, or come to some consensus with other patrons of the establishment. Don't let people smoke in your house, or don't go to their house if they smoke there. Whatever, but asking the state to blur where our individual or collective private lives ends is going to end in no good. It's like supporting freedom of speech. You either do, or you don't, and if you do then you support the right of people to speak things that are utterly abhorrent to you or someone else. Moreover, trying to make decisions for people because you think that they might make the wrong ones themselves is pernicious.

The science of passive smoking is (almost) a separate matter. A press article says "20% increase" Twenty percent of what? Twenty percent of not very much is still not very much. The 'dangers' of passive smoking have not been demonstrated, as many long-term and meta-studies have emphasised. Only a journalist could write "common sense" and "not cutting it with scientists" in derogatory terms. The very same study that is cited, contains the explanation that this increase is not statistically significant.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7A4.htm

The EU is embarking on a campaign against drinking, on the basis that "passive drinking" is dangerous. Sounds lucicrous doesn't it? Such a thing caused John Stuart Mill to write On Liberty.
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/chapter3.html
If you support a ban on smoking in public, you'd better get behind this campaign, because it has precisely the same weight.

[edit] Jan, get some perspective. Other people smoking isn't going to harm you. It might irritate you, but that's a hazard of allowing liberty. Some people I know get irritated by crying babies. My repsonse to them is "tough luck".

JL.

28th June 2006, 00:36

Gassho!

David-sensei, of course You're right about the separation of private and public spheres. And You're right, too, IMHO, that the idea of "passive drinking" doesn't make a lot of sense. But don't You see the difference? If someone drinks next to me it won't hurt me (at least not the drinking itself). If they smoke it does. And You just saying "no, it doesn't" won't make that change. That's what the posted articles say, and comparing a campaign against such a mishabit to the German National Socialists isn't a really good reply to those. It might even occur to You that on an international forum with Germans (and others!) posting and reading this might be seen as slightly callous.
Also, if You really think that no one has a right to be protected from offence by others than why are there laws against it? At least here there are.
Regarding "the science of passive smoking" I cannot see how a 20% increase (the articles are talking of 30% in conservative estimates) would be "statistically insignificant", no matter of what these 20% are (the probability for dying of cancer, in this case). Usually the limit for that lies around 5% and rarely above.
What strikes me as odd is that someone who always seems to be relying on scientific proof and nothing else, can just claim, in the face of several studies stating the opposite, that "Other people smoking isn't going to harm you." Apparently it is. I'm not a scientist, but even I know how hard it is to prove long term effects, especially in an area as multi-causal as cancer. Still, just saying "the proof isn't conclusive" like the director of Forest (see above) won't make the facts go away either. One day the proof probably will be conclusive and 50 years of research already point strongly in one clear direction. So much so that the Surgeon General of the USA says that "the debate is over", extremely strong words for a scientist.
In the light of this Your replies puzzle me. Maybe I just lack perspective. If so, I'm sorry.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

Ewok

28th June 2006, 03:04

It hasn't got anything to do with smoking itself. It is about the state legislating what we can do in our private lives.

Its not what you can do, its where - I'm sure there are already laws against where and when you can drink alcohol, this is not all that different.

If I walked into a pub and started burning something that smelt horrible, made your clothes stink, your eyes water, make your airways contrict so its hard to breathe and had a negative effect on your health, would you complain? I bet you would.

stevenm

28th June 2006, 09:07

Right thats it, I'm taking up smoking again

David Dunn

28th June 2006, 09:20

Jan,
there are laws here against causing offence, for example on religious grounds, and I thoroughly oppose those too. There is an insidious intent that lies behind this. By supporting the state in policing citizen's speech, manners, personal activities, you're surrendering your autonomy. If you can't stand to hear something offensive, or to have the nous to counter it by your own actions, then you don't have liberty. If you don't like people smoking near you, then in terms of liberty, it is much more desirable for you to ask them not to.

On the science, it's not me that is guilty of not understanding it, it's journalists who like stories with big numbers. Let's say that a particular thing affects 5 people in 10,000. Lets say a study suggests that an extra factor means that 6 people in 10,000 would be affected. That's a 20% increase, but it's statistically insignificant - 0.05% or 0.06%. I'm not an expert in epidimiology - perhaps Jame or Rob might be able to eludicidate on hypothesis testing.

The article is meant to draw out the similarities and differences in two authoritarian public health campaigns, one historical and one present. As Fitzpatrick concludes "By curtailing the autonomy of the self-determining individual, authoritarian public health policies infantilise society, weaken democracy and diminish humanity."

conskeptical

28th June 2006, 10:54

Gassho!
Why isn't it? Smoke has a range of 10m and more (and if this sounds like I'm talking about a weapon – I am). I have never heard of anyone seeking out smoke-filled environments to complain in, maybe that's a British habit?
Complaining is, some would strongly argue, the British national sport, and certainly one in which we excel.
Care must always be taken to avoid confusion with this confusing confounding factor, and herein may lie a solution to this discussion:

there are very few real-world problems for which a single globally-applicable solution exists. therefore, what works in Germany may not work in Britain, and viceversa (and also at much larger and smaller scales of community).

But there must be useful cross-insight that different communities can gain from each other.

i think Dave raised important points about infantilised and disempowered society, and I'd like to know how you would could deal with that in a society where the state has the powers of intervention that are being espoused here!

JL.

28th June 2006, 11:32

Gassho!

David-sensei, we're not so far apart on the question of liberty, I think. But liberty isn't everything, if everybody could do everything they liked society wouldn't work. We have to give up some liberty to make it possible for other people to live with us. One simple example: playing loud music in the middle of the night. Now, where are the borders/limits ... who knows? That's certainly up to debate, and that's how democratic societies essentially work.
On the science, as I said I'm not an expert, but to me it sounds like a sleight of hand to say that one more dead person is statistically insignificant if we're just looking at the total number of people instead of the total number of deaths. That way deaths caused by traffic are statistically insignificant compared to the total number of people participating in traffic (=everyone).
The similitarities between smoking bans and Nazi health system may be there, but the Nazis murdered people that they found unworthy of living because they had serious disabilities. I would never, ever compare two such systems. It's not correct in historical science and in the media it's usually just done to say: "Oh luck, this is really bad because it resembles in some ways what the bad guys did."

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

David Dunn

28th June 2006, 13:27

Yes Jan, I think that there is a tongue-in-cheek aspect to the article, based on the old "how to win a debate" tactic: "if all else fails, accuse your opponent of being a nazi". It is easy to see that the two historical contexts are different, as the author points out. For example, Blair's government promotes diversity, where the Nazis most certainly didn't. The parallels are in the campaigning tactics, and the use of science in public policy decisions. In any case, that wasn't the primary reason I posted the link. Rather it was because there is information on surveys on passive smoking, including the quote from Richard Doll. The statistics are 'insignificant' in an everyday sense, because they are comparable to the increased risks associated with eating mushrooms or fish. There is rarely an unequivocal cause of a fatal illness. It's all down to luck, or lack of it, which is why an inexact science has to be used. What is insignificant to an epidemiologist is a headline to a newspaper.

For me, it's just one part of an all-out campaign to make people have a particular lifestyle - the one promoted by Jamie Oliver it seems. Doctors are told to put people on exercise plans, to eat the right food, to encourage them to stop smoking, to look for signs of domestic abuse etc. There is a growing strand of thought that says the NHS shouldn't treat people who have allegedley made themselves ill, such as the obese or smokers. If you search that site for Fitzpatrick's other articles, you'll find lots of stuff about it (he's a GP). He's written a book called "The Tyranny of Health" which argues that the state uses 'health' as a tool of coercion. He puts the case that of all the health scares the only ones with any substance are that smoking will shorten your life, and so perhaps will excessive salt intake. In the latter case it's a few months, whereas in the former it is ten years. He also argues persuasively that the role of doctors should be to make sick people better, and nothing else. Smoking is the thin end of the wedge, and the one that finds easy support. If passive smoking were widely understood to be annoying rather than a health risk, then it would find less support.

Incidentally, signing insurance waivers isn't an admission of guilt, just an indication of how afraid employers are of litigation.

sean dixie

28th June 2006, 15:00

On this arguement....I'm with Dave.

Hmmmm, except the bit about babies. Shut the bloody things up will you! Sooner were all born and raised in labs the better. Oh and don't get me started on kids in pubs..... :p

JL.

28th June 2006, 15:07

Gassho!

We are, I believe, at a point, were our positions hardly differ any more. The only thing we'll probably not agree on is whether passive smoking is a health risk. That can't be helped, I guess. IMHO the evidence, scientific as well as personal experience, is pretty obvious. But no one can be forced to believe that. That's probably the most basic and most important liberty of them all: freedom of belief.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

David Dunn

29th June 2006, 11:57

I was trying to find this:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/183/183i.pdf

It's a House of Lords report on risk management legislation. See page 26 onwards. The committee believe that the government have failed to take personal liberty into account, that voluntary bans were already in place in many workplaces, that the legislation is a disproportionate response to a "minor health issue", and that relying on market forces and personal choice would be a better response.

The minutes of evidence for this report are at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/183/183ii.pdf
See page 143 onwards. Richard Peto states "threshold arguments are often politically motivated inventions with no scientific plausability." When he's questioned about quantifying the risk, he says "because these risks are small they are difficult to measure." See also page 249, for a statement by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association.

Ade

29th June 2006, 12:30

Gassho

I don't care who you quote, (and certainly not the government organ you were railing against in this same post!) smokers are addicted to dangerous drugs that pollute our lives to the detriment of our health.

Why are your rights more important than mine?

What's next?

Jack up on scag in public? smoke crack outside a primary school? burn crystal meth before an embu?

Nice example you just set.

You smell and I don't want to join you...or is that not simple enough for you to understand and should I clarify further and communicate in whoops and grunts?

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhgh!

Ade

David Dunn

29th June 2006, 12:55

The House of Lords is a different body to the legistlative house, and Peto is a leading epidemiologist, not a politician.

Let me just make it clear - I don't smoke.

Tripitaka of AA

29th June 2006, 13:23

Entertaining debate.

I don't smoke. My wife does. I wish she wouldn't. You can't win every battle.

c'est la guerre.

judepeel

29th June 2006, 13:44

Smoking is anti social behaviour, like playing loud noise at 3am, dropping litter, vandalism, urinating on the steet. It is foolish to think that if I go to a club and I don't want to be subjected to a smoky atmostphere that I have to go and ask every smoker there to put their cigarette out.

Not only do I have the odd hole in my clothes and burn on the backs of my arms, but on a number of occasions I have had to leave early because my eyes are too sore. If I have a cough then it is badly aggrivated.

I have my evening out ruined because a minority of people want to smoke. I don't care what they do in their own homes but their behaviour is affecting me detrimentally. To also say it's only has a 10m radius is wrong as air circulates and as a friend of mine likes to say "having a smoking area is like have a peeing area in a swimming pool".

David Dunn

29th June 2006, 14:56

My argument isn't about whether you like being in a smoky atmosphere. I don't particularly like it myself.

This might sound a bit unsympathetic. A nightclub is a private establishment. If you know there is smoking there before you go, then you can't have much complaint. You wouldn't go to a lap-dancing club and then complain that there was nudity. Despite its name, a pub is a private establishment and so is a restaurant. There are plenty of them that have voluntary smoking bans, or non-smoking areas. I don't have any trouble finding a smoke-free place to take my daughter for a meal. The minority of smokers is a third of the adult population, and in terms of the pub-going public, I wouldn't be surprised if it were actually a majority.

The question is - do you think that it is a good idea for the state to legislate what we can or can't do in private?

I'll get to anti-social behaviour later :)

Anders Pettersson

29th June 2006, 15:36

I am sorry, but where is the connection to Shorinjikempo in this discussion??? :confused:
English isn't my first language so I cant really get the connection, if there is one.

/Anders

David Dunn

29th June 2006, 15:41

I think Jan said it was part of an ideal world to have smoking restrictions :)

Anders Pettersson

29th June 2006, 15:46

I think Jan said it was part of an ideal world to have smoking restrictions :)
:) OK, I can get that, but we seem to be quite far from anything related to Shorinjikempo right now. :rolleyes:

[moderator hat on]Please discuss things that are a little more related to Shorinjikempo in this forum, and take other stuff to more appropriate places.[/moderator hat on]

/Anders

John Ryan

29th June 2006, 15:59

Despite being strongly anti-smoking, I'm siding towards David on this one :)

There are many behaviours we don't like other people doing. Few of us can claim innocence of any given anti-social behaviour that has affected others, much as we will rail against it in debate. Things which in the cold light of a discussion board are anathema suddenly become more amusing when rolling out of a pub at closing time, or after a private party, or when on holiday... Given that to greater or lesser degrees we all do these things, doesn't the idea of kyakka shoko come up - let's worry firstly about what we're doing, and save our judgements of others for another day.

David's point about legislating against behaviour is the crux of the question, since everyone seems to agree that smoking is at best unpleasant for non-smokers in the vicinity and everyone also seems to agree that people do have the right to choose how to live their own lives (even if that hurts others - where it hurts others, we have mechanisms in place for dealing with that. Utter prevention is an impossibility, and seems to exist as a concept only so that people can bury their heads in the sand with a rousing "ban it and stamp it out!" cry).

The question is "what do I do when someone is smoking around me?" The legislative solution is to have them arrested. My instinct is to want them to stop, closely followed by wanting to make them stop. But this isn't practical. Where is the limit? I see people doing things I disapprove of a thousand times a day: I don't have time to try to stop them at each occasion. Moreover, it's very rarely my place to. By trying to stop someone I'm saying "My judgement of the rights and wrongs of this situation is better than yours" and using force to enact it. What's to stop someone else thinking the same and stopping me doing a thousand things I do? Then we get a silly "I know better than you" type of argument that only demeans the participants. Those who rail at other people's actions the whole time only put themselves in a position to be railed at in return. If there was any inclination of altruism in the attempt to discourage others from a given course I'd have more sympathy, but most of the anti-smoking posts thus far have been along the lines of "I don't like it so **** off", a style that neither befits reasonable discussion nor the named martial art of this forum.

In my humble opinion :)

judepeel

29th June 2006, 16:37

There is also a stand point that cigarettes are highly addicitive. People who smoke are addicts, regular intake of nicotine means that the body's natural 'nicotine' production is suppressed so stopping smoking produces withdrawal symptoms. If it was discovered today tobacco would not be legal and would be banned as a addictive and damaging drug.

I think personally that means that it should be discouraged, I agree people shouldn't be berated for being addicts, but a move to reduce everyone's exposure to cigerettes is not a bad thing. It may hopefully lead to less people taking up smoking - how many people do you think tried their first cigarette in a club after a few drinks?

Again I am not saying that people shouldn't be able to smoke in their own homes, but it affects their kids and it is always depressing to see a pregnant woman smoke. She is an addict and shouldn't be vilified as such but I do feel it is a shame.

We are talking about restricting the use of a dangerous substance that kills a lot of people. I just don't think that's all that awful.

judepeel

29th June 2006, 17:56

OH sorry we've been told to stop.....I'll shut up

conskeptical

29th June 2006, 21:39

well, maybe this is related to shorinji kempo.

kempo isn't just about hitting and throwing each other, or even dodging such things, it's also about increasing the quality of ourselves and each other and those around us.

locking horns over any matter, especially one as incendiary as this, is an opportunity for us to grow! and it's giving me an insight on the people who I know, at least a little, in their kempo capacity, but not so much in their capacity as human beings. which is certainly worth something to me!

the relation this thread has to shorinji kempo is that almost every participant is an active shorinji kempo student/sensei. if only that was relation enough :)

Richard Codling

30th June 2006, 09:32

I think Jan said it was part of an ideal world to have smoking restrictions :)

I think it was actually my fault - I tried to use restricting smoking in public places as an example of how people's perceptions of an ideal world are different and how we should try and understand those differences with a view to reaching an amicable solution. I didn't mean to spark a debate on the restrictions of civil liberties. I used smoking as (I thought) it was the least controversial of the examples I had.

I'll just go back to being rubbish at Physics. And Shorinji Kempo.

stevenm

30th June 2006, 10:43

I used smoking as (I thought) it was the least controversial of the examples I had.

Just out of interest what was your most controversial.

sean dixie

30th June 2006, 11:06

There is also a stand point that cigarettes are highly addicitive. People who smoke are addicts, regular intake of nicotine means that the body's natural 'nicotine' production is suppressed so stopping smoking produces withdrawal symptoms. If it was discovered today tobacco would not be legal and would be banned as a addictive and damaging drug.

Same can be said for many things also. Watch this space, ciggies first (no I don't smoke) then the powers that be(did I miss a meeting?) will get stuck into my drug of choice alcohol - the most socially destructive drug of them all. Don't see many smokers running people over after a hard nights smoking, or beating the wife up for that matter. Anyone read 2000AD comic when they were younger? Seem to remember Dredd locking up people for possession of sugar, caffeine ect. I gave up coffee last year, boy the migrains were fun! Do we ban everything thats addictive? What isn't in some way, shape or form?

sheb

30th June 2006, 12:01

maybe this discussion isn't related to shorinji kempo, but i think it's very interesting and a good example how difficult it is to get a minimum consensus between people ... and in this case between people which have something in common (at least shorinji kempo, ebudo-membership and being part of western culture ... which means - i suppose - that their views are less different than in a "bigger circle of people" probably ... that there's the same basis).

jailess

30th June 2006, 15:22

then the powers that be(did I miss a meeting?) will get stuck into my drug of choice alcohol - the most socially destructive drug of them all. Don't see many smokers running people over after a hard nights smoking, or beating the wife up for that matter.
Oh, really? At least Alcohol has visible signs of social destruction. If someone beats the sh*t out of their wife the effect is there to see on her face. If someone smokes around their wives for 40 years, and then their sons and daughters smoke, and then their sons and daughters, then the family's health is damaged for generations.

Re: Statistical Significance:
A statistic can be either significant or insignificant. Nowadays most people prefer Confidence Intervals - Say you compare 2 groups (e.g. Smokers and non-smokers) to see how they are different (e.g. lung cancer incidence). The Relative Risk will be how much MORE likely you are to get Lung Cancer if you smoke compared to if you didn't. If the relative risk is 1.5, then smokers are 50% MORE likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers (in reality it's much higher). With this value will be the confidence interval - this is the range within which the TRUE relative risk for the population lies with 95% probability. If it crosses 1 (i.e. it's possible the 2 groups are equal in terms of risk) the statistic is insignificant.

For example, in James Ernstrom's research on Californian Smokers' spouses fron 1959-1999(available here (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=james+enstrom&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT)), The relative risk for coronary heart disease, comparing non-smokers married to smokers (versus non-smokers married to non-smokers) was 0.94. That means people married to smokers are 6% LESS likely to have heart disease. Unsurprisingly, this statistic is not Significant - The 95% confidence interval is 0.85 - 1.05 --> crosses 1 --> insignificant.

This study assumes that If you are married to a smoker, you are exposed to significantly more cigarette smoke than if you weren't. Most people only spend 5-6 waking hours a day with their spouse - there are still 10 other waking hours in which to be exposed to smoke at work, on the bus, etc.

This is a crap study that was heavily criticised at the time and used shoddy statistics to compare two groups who would have reasonably similar exposure to smoke (in california in the 60's - 90's).

A much better and more recent study is here (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/812?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=passive+smoking&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT#SEC3). Note at the bottom of the page:

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.
As opposed to Ernstrom's paper, which was funded by the tobacco industry, after the US government refused funding (presumably because the research was so crap).

If I told you all that I had read the Pharma Companie's study on Progenitorivox and that it was a wonder-drug that would cure all ills, you'd tell me to go away and read an objective paper and get the real story. similarly, quoting out-of-date papers with shoddy statistics funded by Big Tobacco isn't going to win any arguments.

The debate over Passive Smoking's effects is over. In the time I've been at Med School I've seen the evidence go from equivalent to definite. Passive Smoking Kills.

And if it kills people, let's stop it. So we can get an Ideal World (You see how I brought it back to SK?)

David, I see what you are saying about civil liberties, but I flat out disagree. workers have the right to a smoke-free environment. Assault is defined as: "An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another." Smoking causes bodily injury. Not just long-term, either - smoke can trigger asthma attacks, hayfever and worsen skin conditions. I'm loving the Smoking Ban in Scotland - with any luck, it'll be rolled out across the UK soon.

Smokers had the run of public places for the last 500 years. Now it's our turn.

Omicron

1st July 2006, 23:07

I've gotta say, I'm on the side of the anti-smokers.

We've had a smoking ban in place here for quite some time now, and I must say, I love it. I believe that my right to clean air and cancer-free lungs trumps someone's right to smoke around me. If people want to smoke in their own yards or houses, fine. I don't mind if people want to participate in self-destructive behaviour. I don't see why they should be entitled to take other people along with them.

As has been said already, a certain amount of government intervention is required for society to function. That's a government's job-- to balance the freedom and equality of its people. I understand that smokers probably feel violated by not being permitted to smoke wherever they please, but I feel just as violated not being able to have clean air to breathe wherever I please.

A nightclub is a private establishment. If you know there is smoking there before you go, then you can't have much complaint. You wouldn't go to a lap-dancing club and then complain that there was nudity. Despite its name, a pub is a private establishment and so is a restaurant. There are plenty of them that have voluntary smoking bans, or non-smoking areas.
We ran into an interesting problem with pubs and bars here when the smoking ban was first enacted. Certain establishments believed that they would lose a huge amount of business if people were not longer allowed to smoke, so they didn't enforce the ban. Many places openly welcomed smokers, and as a result, those places that did support the ban suffered. Soon it looked like the whole idea would collapse, with those places that supported the ban having their business taken away by places that didn't. The police eventually stepped in with heavy fines for those places that still permitted smoking, but it still set off a huge debate. I think the point that it illustrates is that, at least over here, a smoking ban would not be supported without government intervention.

I think there is more than enough clear evidence to show that smoking is a dangerous and fatal addiction. It is a government's responsibilty to protect the lives and health of its citizens, and a ban on public smoking does just that. Sure, it infringes on certain personal liberties. But there comes a certain point at which liberties and freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good. Nobody would argue that it would be wrong for me to be allowed to forcefully take whatever I want from whomever I want free of consequence. So we have laws against it. And nobody would argue that it would be wrong for me to be able to physically harm somebody else who was bothering me, so we have laws against that, too. Those are personal freedoms that I am denied, because as a society we view them as morally wrong, and the state provides citizens with protection from such actions. Smoking is just another example of a behaviour that is harmful to others, and that I would expect the state to protect me from, just as it protects me from theft and assault.

tony leith

2nd July 2006, 14:01

This thread seems to have not so much gotten sidetracked as leapt the rails entirely into the smoking debate...

For once I actually DON'T agree with Dave Dunn; as far as I am concerned smokers do not have a right to expel their noxious fumes at me when I'm trying to mind my own business in a public place. The point Dave is trying to make about it being purely the concern of the individual is negated by 1) the laws of Brownian motion (if they were wearing airtight helmets I wouldn't give a !!!!) and 2) ahem, the point of having legislatures and democratic processes, erratic and imperfect as they may be, is that it obviates the necessity for people to 'sort it out amongst themselves' - what if non smokers (not entirely unreasonably in my view) decide to view smoking at them as an assault upon their person and decide that force is a legitimate recourse; needless to say, one doubts that the smokers would take this lying down, and before you know where you are you have a general brawl...

In the case of tobacco products the 'freedom of choice' argument is further compromised by the fact that it is now pretty much a matter of public record that the tobacco companies have been designing their products to be more addictive over decades.

In Scotland, the Executive was responding to the feeling that some dramatically symbolic act was necessary to kick start doing something about the country's generally appalling public health record (pick pretty much any cause of mortality in the western world and we're right there at the top). If Scotland's smokers object, they can always campaign to get the ban reversed ('We demand the right to slowly poison ourselves and others!' Doesn't sound that appealing? Well, tough !!!!)

Tony Leith

sean dixie

2nd July 2006, 17:51

As the title suggests. And as my grandmother said, you will never appreciate what you have till you lose it.

tony leith

2nd July 2006, 18:36

Freedom is not an absolute good. Despite my antipathy towards breathing other people's cigarette smoke, my basic predisposition is that society should afford any individual the maximum degree of freedom of choice possible for themselves . I do not accept that a smoker has a right to make that choice for me.

On a more global scale, it seems that many people in the west consider it their inalienable right to burn hydrocarbons like there's no tomorrow. The libertarian view would be that if people can afford to purchase vehicles you could land a small aircraft on, then nothing should obstruct their freedom of choice. Given the predictable environmental consequences, I would tend to take the view that if you can deter people from purchasing them e.g through a punitive tax regime, you should.

I'm not assuming that there are no countervailing arguments to this position, just that taking 'freedom' as the only operative public good may be a bit more problematic than it first seems..

Tony Leith

David Dunn

2nd July 2006, 21:29

If I told you all that I had read the Pharma Companie's study on Progenitorivox and that it was a wonder-drug that would cure all ills, you'd tell me to go away and read an objective paper and get the real story. similarly, quoting out-of-date papers with shoddy statistics funded by Big Tobacco isn't going to win any arguments. [/QUOTE]

Who quoted any such papers Jame? I pointed to the World Health Organisation, and Parliamentary evidence by Peto, who after all is Doll's protoge, and makes it his business to make sure that the public knows the effects of smoking. The reason I pointed to him, and indeed Doll himself, is that they are/were clearly trying to publicise the risks associated with smoking, and most definitely not anything to do with the tobacco industry. Peto was on telly the other night, and the figures are that half of smokers die from smoking related disease and on average have ten years shorter life. You are 2000% more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke. Yet, the same researcher states that he is unable to quantify the risks of passive smoking because they are so small.

The BMJ paper is based on estimates and the author's own extrapolations. There isn't a study there - it's all supposition. You might want to read the responses to the paper:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38370.496632.8Fv3#99014

Who cares who funds research? If it's good science it'll survive, if not it won't. The anti-smoking lobby sponsor just as much research, and if you also wrote that off, there wouldn't be much left.

This discussion illustrates precisely why the government have been able to implement the ban with so liitle opposition. There hasn't been a worker-led campaign to have smoke-free workplaces. There are thousands of pubs around the country where everyone smokes and no one wants a ban. There was no consultation, no prospect of a proper debate. Just an edict, based on dubious science. However, almost anyone who prefers to be in a smoke-free environment has said "yes, that would enhance my pub trip, so it must be a good thing." Coming soon will be a ban on smoking in the home, in the interests of protecting children.

Kari MakiKuutti

3rd July 2006, 08:06

Coming soon will be a ban on smoking in the home, in the interests of protecting children.
This is a good idea. Where can we send it to make it happen in great Britain and the colonies?
If you adopt this France and Germany will naturally oppose it and also the rest of EU will be free...

sean dixie

3rd July 2006, 09:58

Anyone notice how the free market has been working on this subject? As an ardent pub goer since I could first get in them I would say that over the last few years there has been a massive decrease in smoky pub/club enviroments. People know smoking is bad and are so giving up. I think that if you compared a bar ten years ago versus now there would certainly be a marked difference in atmosphere. My favourite blues bar in Soho at one time would only permit me a couple of hours max due to watering eyes and a barely visable band (some might say THE natural element for a blues band :cool: ) I can now happily spend all night there- it's great. I would not for one minute see it as my right to stop those people from smoking, it's my choice to go in or not.
I think you'll find as time goes that more bars/pubs will be banning smoking individually and think this is the right way to go. It'll leave landlords/companies the freedom to choose a smoking allowed bar or not. Let the market decide, not government.

sean dixie

3rd July 2006, 10:00

This is a good idea. Where can we send it to make it happen in great Britain and the colonies?
If you adopt this France and Germany will naturally oppose it and also the rest of EU will be free...

This for real? :-0

Omicron

3rd July 2006, 17:09

taking 'freedom' as the only operative public good may be a bit more problematic than it first seems..
Hear hear!

jailess

4th July 2006, 11:53

Coming soon will be a ban on smoking in the home, in the interests of protecting children.
Great idea! The rates of asthma in this country would drop like a stone. I sat in on a few Kiddie's Asthma clinics when I was doing my Paeds block: parents would come in reeking of smoke, stink up the room and start giving the doctor into trouble for not curing their child's asthma. They get told pretty quickly to stop smoking and come back in 3 months.

Re your link I scrolled down and found this response (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38370.496632.8Fv3#103137):

Smoking increases mortality by 100 to 200%. People exposed to passive smoking show tobacco metabolites in their blood at 100 to 1000 times lower concentrations than smokers. In the simplest of linear models, mortality is expected to increase through passive smoking by 1-2 % to 1-2 ‰. That is (at least in Belgium and the Netherlands) more than accepted thresholds in legislation regulating either occupational or environmental health. Such risks are to be reduced to levels as low as possible. The lowest level possible is easy to identify: apply the law, ban smoking in all public places. This is time honoured decision making in risk management, which is not supported by hard epidemiologic data. Indeed, risk management doesn’t like to wait for the deaths to be counted.
An increase in mortality of 1-2% is good enough for me to support a public ban on statistical grounds. My other reasons are all on aesthetic grounds, whch Ade has put more eloquently than I.

sean dixie

4th July 2006, 13:06

jailess

4th July 2006, 13:16

What else do you want banned Jamie? How would you like to enforce the parental no smoking law? If it involves taking all those cameras that I have to avoid on my bike and put them in chavs homes I'm with you. Else seems pretty unenforcable to me. Still may give the police something else to do I guess, maybe those community support officers could do it.

Alcohol next. Then we can get stuck into those pie addicts who keep clogging up the hospitals with weight related illnesses...

Hey @~#$ it, let's take just out the working class! An ideal world...perhaps.
NOW you're thinking like a medic! (And it's "Jame". Although "Idiot" will also do).

In reality it's completely unworkable of course; but when parents are smoking at their child for 50+ hours a week, exposing them to all those carcinogens just when their bodies are starting to grow, their immune system develop, etc. AND making it more likely for them to pick up the habit later on in life, I consider that an extremely unfair deal for the kid.

David Dunn

4th July 2006, 13:59

Hey @~#$ it, let's take just out the working class! An ideal world...perhaps.

Perhaps close to the mark Sean. All of these measures are based on some assumption that we can't make the 'correct' choices if allowed to do so.

Meanwhile, all the real rights we used to have are disappearing - right to free speech, right to free association, right to free political affiliation, right to free press, right to not be detained without trial, right to trial by jury, right to the presumption of innocence, right to privacy, right to demonstrate, right to unrestricted movement. As long as we have a right to smell nice after a night out, then I guess that all makes up for it.

Remember, 1-2% of a very small number is still a very small number. Even 100% of a very small number is a very small number. As a professional mathematician I know this with more than 95% confidence :)

Here's a test for would-be statisticians. Suppose that 1 in 1000 of the population is affected by some condition. Suppose that there is a test for the condition that has a rate of false positives of 5%. If you are tested positive, what is the chance that you have the condition?

(A false positive rate of 5% means that if you test 100 people who are all in the clear, then you will identify 5 of them as affected.)

sean dixie

4th July 2006, 14:43

In reality it's completely unworkable of course; but when parents are smoking at their child for 50+ hours a week, exposing them to all those carcinogens just when their bodies are starting to grow, their immune system develop, etc. AND making it more likely for them to pick up the habit later on in life, I consider that an extremely unfair deal for the kid.

Actually this bought me right back to topic. An ideal world, and the unanswerable question of what, actually is an ideal world? Yours or mine?
My immediate reaction to the last sentance was "Is life meant to be fair?" OK, the kids not starting out great, but he's doing a damn sight better than most kids in the world. I.3 billion people without electricity I believe. How many without water I know not. A thousand kids a day dying of starvation.
This is not to detract from our responsabilities to the children of smokers, I'm just not happy about the erosion of my liberties in the process.

jailess

4th July 2006, 14:45

Remember, 1-2% of a very small number is still a very small number. Even 100% of a very small number is a very small number. As a professional mathematician I know this with more than 95% confidence :)

Here's a test for would-be statisticians. Suppose that 1 in 1000 of the population is affected by some condition. Suppose that there is a test for the condition that has a rate of false positives of 5%. If you are tested positive, what is the chance that you have the condition?

(A false positive rate of 5% means that if you test 100 people who are all in the clear, then you will identify 5 of them as affected.)
2%, assuming 100% sensitivity. Do I get a star?

sean dixie

4th July 2006, 14:46

Here's a test for would-be statisticians. Suppose that 1 in 1000 of the population is affected by some condition. Suppose that there is a test for the condition that has a rate of false positives of 5%. If you are tested positive, what is the chance that you have the condition?

(A false positive rate of 5% means that if you test 100 people who are all in the clear, then you will identify 5 of them as affected.)

I think you know me well enough Dave to know I'm not even going to attempt that one! :p

I'm much more an arty kind of guy :rolleyes:

judepeel

4th July 2006, 16:14

[QUOTE=David Dunn] All of these measures are based on some assumption that we can't make the 'correct' choices if allowed to do so. [QUOTE]

Can you really make an unbiased decision whether or not smoking is allowed if you are an addict. Smoking subdues the natural acetylcholine production in the body, so you get withdrawel symptoms if you quit or don't smoke for a few hours. The addictiveness of heroin and nicotine is apparently comparable according to some research.

Would we allow a panel of heroin addicts vote on whether to legalise heroin? I'm not saying they would all vote that be legalised but would it be an unbiased decision?

Not that I don't think that smokers have rights I'm just saying their arguements on this subject are coloured by the fact they are addicted. If you were able to remove a parents addiction with a magic wand and then ask them if they wanted to smoke in front of the children would they make the same decision as they would when they were addicted.

Addicts like to downplay the strenght of the addiction and the seriousness of the effects it has, I knew someone who drank a bottle of wine every night or he couldn't sleep but vehemently denied he had an alcohol problem. Someone who can't quit does like to admit to themselves they might be harming their children.

JL.

4th July 2006, 16:49

Gassho!

Here's a test for would-be statisticians. Suppose that 1 in 1000 of the population is affected by some condition. Suppose that there is a test for the condition that has a rate of false positives of 5%. If you are tested positive, what is the chance that you have the condition?

(A false positive rate of 5% means that if you test 100 people who are all in the clear, then you will identify 5 of them as affected.)Actually the correct answer is 95% (sorry, Jame-san, maybe next time). And I think a certain professional mathematician shot himself in the foot with the question. If You want me to prove the answer go ahead and ask.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

David Dunn

4th July 2006, 16:56

Jaime, you only get a star if you produce a full explanation based on Bayes theorem :) But it's correct. Most people, including mathematicians and doctors get it wrong and say 95%.

Re: the 'correct' choice. You don't have to give up smoking. The correct choice for many people is to smoke. They like it, it's a pleasure. You're suggesting that their "addiction" is clouding their ability to make the choice to give up. Why can't they make a rational choice to smoke? That's the point I was trying to make - the assumption is that if you choose to carry on smoking, then you're making the wrong choice. The idea that smokers are victims to nicotine stopping their obviously only rational choice to quit is a denial of their ability to make a choice. I don't really buy into it being hard to give up, but that's another story.

Sorry Jan, you're not right.

JL.

4th July 2006, 17:37

Gassho!

Here's a test for would-be statisticians. Suppose that 1 in 1000 of the population is affected by some condition. Suppose that there is a test for the condition that has a rate of false positives of 5%. If you are tested positive, what is the chance that you have the condition?

(A false positive rate of 5% means that if you test 100 people who are all in the clear, then you will identify 5 of them as affected.)The test has a rate of false positives of 5%. Which means that if ONE given person is being tested positive it's wrong (=false positive) in 5% of the cases and right in 95%. Of course the likelihood for ANY person being tested falsely positive is much higher. But that's not what You asked. Unless there is additional information that wasn't given in the first place...

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

judepeel

4th July 2006, 17:47

"In the UK, about 80% of smokers have made at least one attempt to quit, and some 30% make at least one attempt each year. Only a tiny proportion of quit attempts succeed, so that only approximately 1% of smokers in the UK become long-term ex-smokers each year."

From the Royal College of Physicians I know stats can't be completely trusted but certainly shows that it is a high proportion that try to quit.

I don't think that the power of addiction can be underestimated I really admire people who manage it.

"A small proportion of smokers (probably about 5%) are able to maintain regular, but low levels of tobacco consumption and periods of abstinence with little difficulty. It is not clear why this is the case for some but not for the majority, but some available evidence is consistent with a constitutionally reduced sensitivity to nicotine."

There are a few people who can smoke without addiction hence why some people find it harder than others to quit. Addiction of this kind involves changes in your way your brain functions - absence of the drug in question can cause depression, anxiety, insomnia and irritability as well as physical symptoms. All of which weaken your resolve. You're implying people that fail to quit are just weak willed which I think is not the case.

As the US Tobacco Institute put it in 1980: “We can’t defend continued smoking as ‘free choice’ if the person was ‘addicted’. " Minnesota trial exhibit 14,303. (At the time they were trying to argue smoking was not addictive it has been since shown that it definately is, as evidenced by physiological changes)

David Dunn

4th July 2006, 17:48

Gassho!
The test has a rate of false positives of 5%. Which means that if ONE given person is being tested positive it's wrong (=false positive) in 5% of the cases and right in 95%. Of course the likelihood for ANY person being tested falsely positive is much higher. But that's not what You asked. Unless there is additional information that wasn't given in the first place...

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

Sorry Jan, that's totally wrong. Think of it like this. Take 1000 people. 1 of them has the condition. Now test them all. With a rate of false positives of 5%, you will get 5% of 999 people showing positive, which is just under 50 people. Hence there is a 1 in 50 chance, or 2%. We didn't consider the rate of false negatives, so we don't know what chance the 1 has of being identified. I'm not pulling any bullets out of my metatarsals yet.

This problem is used to illustrate why people believe that DNA or fingerprint matches are infallible, and why under no circumstances should only DNA or only fingerprint evidence be used to convict someone - fingerprinting gives 5% of false positives IIRC. The same question is also used to demonstrate how easy it is to make a tiny risk seem much bigger.

JL.

4th July 2006, 17:59

Gassho!

Sorry Jan, that's totally wrong. Think of it like this. Take 1000 people. 1 of them has the condition. Now test them all. With a rate of false positives of 5%, you will get 5% of 999 people showing positive, which is just under 50 people. Hence there is a 1 in 50 chance, or 2%. We didn't consider the rate of false negatives, so we don't know what chance the 1 has of being identified. I'm not pulling any bullets out of my metatarsals yet.In fact I believe that You exactly proved my point. I know that these examples are used to show why mass testing is completely unsensible. That's why I wrote that for ONE GIVEN person the chance is 95% (and You asked for "how likely is it that YOU will be positive", so for one certain person).
We did indeed not consider the rate of false negatives, which is why I wrote that with additional information the answer would change.
I've read about this problem in regard with AIDS-tests. Some people (who do not understand what You just explained) ask for required AIDS-tests for the whole population which would achieve exactly nothing for the given reasons, i. e. too many false positives and negatives. But if one person takes an AIDS-test and it is positive the likelihood for this one person to actually be HIV positive is 95% (with the numbers You suggested), not 2%. Trust me on this one.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

David Dunn

4th July 2006, 18:41

Jan, you've made an extra assumption - that you have taken the test because you have further evidence that you have the condition. If you take the test for no good reason other than you fancy the test, then a positive indicates a 2% chance. If you take the test because you have reason to believe that you have contracted the condition from someone, then the priors change. In this case, I don't need to trust anyone, because good old fashioned deductive reasoning comes up with the goods.

Jude - I could go off-topic to what is already off-topic. I've stopped smoking. My partner stopped. So did my dad and my brother. Almost all of my friends used to smoke but have stopped. Some haven't. I think it's quite easy to stop in cases where you really want to do so, and resolve to go through with it. You have to pretty weak to let a day or two of grouchiness defeat you. The only good reason to stop is that it is bad for your health, or perhaps your wallet. If it weren't bad for your health, everyone would probably do it. I don't think there's much reason to admire people that give up, but increasingly I admire those that don't want to give up, and aren't afraid to say so. I think George is planning to write a book about that someday :)

The fact that the rates of smoking have been in sharp decline in the developed world for 30 years means that we're taking the choice of a chance of better health over indulgence. That's fine, it's a good choice. Most importantly as Sean pointed out, it's been made freely.

Anyhow, ultimately I think it's a petty issue. Whether the population smokes or not, and where, is irrelevant. Authoritarian statism however is a pretty dangerous thing.

Omicron

4th July 2006, 19:33

What I don't understand here is how some people are describing smoking as a liberty that we should not be denied; as soon as it becomes illegal we are suddenly living in a dangerously authoritarian state. What about all the other liberties people are denied? We aren't allowed to make an informed decision to take herion, or cocaine, or LSD, crystal meth, or marijuana. How are those any different? Surely if people should be allowed to smoke whenever and wherever they please, they should also be allowed to use other substances as well. From a "personal freedom" standpoint, I really don't see the difference. In fact, most of those drugs harm only the person using them. There's no such thing as "passive heroin injection". Perhaps it should be legalized in pubs and bars as well.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how one can argue against smoking bans as an infringement on our liberties but still support bans on other drugs.

JL.

4th July 2006, 20:50

Gassho!

Jan, you've made an extra assumption - that you have taken the test because you have further evidence that you have the condition. If you take the test for no good reason other than you fancy the test, then a positive indicates a 2% chance. If you take the test because you have reason to believe that you have contracted the condition from someone, then the priors change. In this case, I don't need to trust anyone, because good old fashioned deductive reasoning comes up with the goods.I don't think so. And if this version were true, why take the test at all, if it doesn't really mean anything?
But I don't think we'll resolve this. I could quote the book I got this from to You, which is written by a professor for statistics and mostly on errors in statistics and how they're misinterpreted, but since there's no complete mathematical proof in there and since I can't just come up with it myself that probably wouldn't change anything either.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

judepeel

4th July 2006, 22:20

Jude - I could go off-topic to what is already off-topic. I've stopped smoking. My partner stopped. So did my dad and my brother. Almost all of my friends used to smoke but have stopped. Some haven't. I think it's quite easy to stop in cases where you really want to do so, and resolve to go through with it. You have to pretty weak to let a day or two of grouchiness defeat you. The only good reason to stop is that it is bad for your health, or perhaps your wallet. If it weren't bad for your health, everyone would probably do it. I don't think there's much reason to admire people that give up, but increasingly I admire those that don't want to give up, and aren't afraid to say so. I think George is planning to write a book about that someday :)

Well done on giving up, but I stand by what I say you just have to spend time in a hospital with someone dying of COPD (yes I had a stint as a volunteer in a lovely tabard making tea) you can tell them till you are blue in the face that they can eliviate the suffocating feeling from lack of oxygen by not smoking and they will still smoke. (I live with a guy who does lungs scans as his job and moans about them everyday). Maybe we should deny treatment if it's so easy to give up the obvious first line of treatment should be to advise them to quit smoking . It's really easy we'll start on the next step once you've done that.

If I was told I had developed cancer from eating chocolate and it would progress more rapidly and be more likely to return if I continued eating chocolate then I would just stop eating it, it's a bit of a no-brainer. If everyone found it easy to quit why are there COPD patients who need oxygen still going out for a fag

This is not necessariliy a sign they are less strong willed than you but maybe their addiction is stronger than yours, different sensitivity to nicotine maybe, smoking more cigarettes? we aren't all built the same. To say people stay smoking because they like it reinforces my point, of course they like smoking you don't get addicted to something that gives you a bad feeling, heroin must make you feel great. The figures I have found state that 70-80% (depending on the source) of smokers have tried to give up - only 1 - 3 % succeed longterm. I certainly know a lot of people that give up and then go back to it months later.

I stand by my assertation that addiction to a substance means you unlikely to be able to be impartial about its use. I'm still arguing this point because of whether it is actually free choice or not if the addiction is affecting your choice. (and I'm enjoying a good debate :) )

PS COPD is chronic obstruction pulmonary disease - diseases where your lung function is decreased

David Dunn

4th July 2006, 22:54

I'm sorry, but I don't see how one can argue against smoking bans as an infringement on our liberties but still support bans on other drugs.

I don't. Smoking has declined while it's been legal. Heroin use has increased while it's been illegal. As far as I know the tobacco industry isn't involved in gun running, people smuggling, protection rackets, extortion and whatever else black marketeers are associated with.

why take the test at all, if it doesn't really mean anything

It's a problem designed to make you think, not something that you're going to actually do! What's the book - I'd be interested to see the argument? This one is in Paulos book Innumeracy and Nassim Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. Paulos says:

"This is the so-called false positive problem: it shows itself wherever you have an imperfect signal of an unlikely event, and it leads to situations in which most of your positive signals are false positives: fake signals, not real indicators of the problem or the event at all."

(aside - in the studies mentioned earlier, "statistically insignificant" means that there is a higher chance of the observed results being due to random fluctuation than being due to your hypothesis.)

Jude - I don't think we should ever, ever consider withdrawing treatment for anybody. The job of the health service is to try to make people better, not to act as agents of coercion. If the doctor recommends you give up smoking and you don't, then you should still get the full treatment. What is COPD by the way?

judepeel

5th July 2006, 07:30

Sorry I amended my post to explain what it is, COPD (chronic obstruction pulmonary disease )actually a disease state rather than a disease - chronic bronchitis and emphysema - diseases where your lung function is decreased.

I agree with you on the withdrawing treatment side but interestingly not all doctors agree

"The survey also found that 39% of those surveyed felt smokers and drinkers should be excluded from certain procedures." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4674594.stm

My point really was that if everyone found it relatively easy to quit surely in these circumstances they would, "stop smoking and you'll be able to breathe more easily" should be a pretty persuasive arguement.

BTW I did get the stats question right but the ensuing arguement is confusing me (which isn't hard)

cheunglo

5th July 2006, 08:07

In fact I believe that You exactly proved my point. I know that these examples are used to show why mass testing is completely unsensible. That's why I wrote that for ONE GIVEN person the chance is 95% (and You asked for "how likely is it that YOU will be positive", so for one certain person).
We did indeed not consider the rate of false negatives, which is why I wrote that with additional information the answer would change.
I've read about this problem in regard with AIDS-tests. Some people (who do not understand what You just explained) ask for required AIDS-tests for the whole population which would achieve exactly nothing for the given reasons, i. e. too many false positives and negatives. But if one person takes an AIDS-test and it is positive the likelihood for this one person to actually be HIV positive is 95% (with the numbers You suggested), not 2%. Trust me on this one.
Jan
Here is the mathematical proof that David is right. In any binary test there are only 2 outcomes: positive and negative and either can be true or false. So, designate:
FP : probability of false positive
FN : probability of false negative
TP : probability of true positive
TN : probability of true negative

Thus FP + FN + TP + TN = 100%

Given David's original numbers we have:
FP = 5%
TP + FN = 0.1%

Thus TN = 100% - 5% - 0.1% = 94.9%

The only thing we do not know is the ratio of true positives to false negatives. If you have been tested as positive then the probability you are positive is, as David says ~= 0.1/5.1 ~= 0.2%.

David also made a mistake too. The probabilties are not, in fact, dependent on whether or not you have other information (the test does not know of these external facts).

cheunglo

5th July 2006, 08:28

One further point, if you have been tested as negative, the probability that the result is correct is ~= 94.9/95 ~= 99.9%.

What you forgot to consider is that the test has different accuracies for positive and negative outcomes.

Lastly, I made a mistake too: 0.1/5.1 ~= 2% (not 0.2%)

JL.

5th July 2006, 08:41

Gassho!

I'm sorry, but that doesn't change anything. At least not if this is supposed to be a realistic problem. Of course the chances are as described for the basic population of this test, but that's not how this works. As I said, for one individual the chances for having the condition if the test is positive do not depend on the overall likelihood of the condition.
Let me try to explain further: If statistically 999 out of the 1000 persons had the condition and one person would be tested positive that result would, according to Your methods, mean that the probability for having the condition is actually sinking, though at 95% the test is 'rather good'! Same question as before: why test at all?
Of course if we knew for sure that among 1000 persons standing before us exactly 1, no more and no less, had the condition, You would be right. But that's the difference between statistics and pure math. If we knew this for sure it would mean that we had a test that was 100% sure, in which case the other test would be obsolete and so would the whole problem.
So the conclusion, is, was and will always be: the probability for a correct positive testing is 95%, because that's what the test says. Ironically David-sensei said it himself: even mathematicians (himself) and doctors (Jame-san) get this wrong. I don't suppose You're part of one of these two groups, Cheung-san, are You? ;)

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

Edit: Didn't see Your second post before posting; doesn't change anything. JL

Anders Pettersson

5th July 2006, 09:06

Do all of you still think that you are discussing something directly related to Shorinjikempo?

/Anders

cheunglo

5th July 2006, 09:35

... So the conclusion, is, was and will always be: the probability for a correct positive testing is 95%, because that's what the test says. Ironically David-sensei said it himself: even mathematicians (himself) and doctors (Jame-san) get this wrong. I don't suppose You're part of one of these two groups, Cheung-san, are You? ...
Jan
Where did David say "... the probability for a correct positive testing is 95% ..."? Reading back through the posts, the only person who say this is you. Given David's original numbers, the probability of a positive result being correct ~= 2% and the probability of a negative result being correct is ~= 99.9%. Only marketeers would attempt to fudge the 2 accuracies together to say something like "... the test has a 95% accuracy ..." And before you ask, I am qualified in both physics (which is mostly applied maths) and marketing.

... Of course if we knew for sure that among 1000 persons standing before us exactly 1, no more and no less, had the condition, You would be right. But that's the difference between statistics and pure math. If we knew this for sure it would mean that we had a test that was 100% sure, in which case the other test would be obsolete and so would the whole problem. ...
You are however correct in alluding to the fact that a measurement of 1 in a 1000 does not prove an infection rate of 0.1%. Although, even if we know this for sure, the test would still be useful (but only if you test negative - the chance of a positive result being wrong being too high). I'm afraid that the grammar you used in the remainder of the sentence does not allow me to understand the rest of of what you are saying.

... Let me try to explain further: If statistically 999 out of the 1000 persons had the condition and one person would be tested positive that result would, according to Your methods, mean that the probability for having the condition is actually sinking, though at 95% the test is 'rather good'! Same question as before: why test at all? ...

If the measurement was 999 in 1000 cases, then it would not be possible for a test to have a false positive rate of 5% since it is not possible for the following 3 equations to hold true (without FN being a negative probability):
TP + FN = 99.9%
FP = 5%
FP + FN + TP + TN = 100%