GENTECH archive


Aspartame Hypothesis, Intuition, Exageration

Aspartame Hypothesis, Intuition, Exageration

Dear Christoph Reuss,

Perhaps you misunderstood my main point, but you are right
in some respects. You are right to say that Betty's cases are
not proven to be representative. In fact that would be an
inappropriate term to use in this situation at this time.
To the best of my knowledge, no statistical analysis
has been done on Aspartame. Yet.

You addressed one tiny part of my post and ignored
the rest. I'm saying that Betty has uncovered  'X' cases,
therefore I intuitively feel that there are probably a minimum
of 10x or 100x other cases worldwide. I might be wrong.
But for me it is nearly obvious. I said that Aspartame is
implicated, I never said it was proven in hundreds of
thousands of cases worldwide. What we have here is called
a hypothesis. If you don't buy into my hypothesis, no big deal.
That's called difference of opinion. Because of difference of
opinion, what I call hypothesis, you call exageration.

But we might do well to test the hypothesis.

You certainly are entitled to your own opinion and intuition.
You are right that the Clinton example. That was an example of
intuitive extrapolation and not one of formal logical or
statistical significance.

The final and bottom line for me is...
More research needs to be done. It cries out to be done.

Peter Ligotti

> As an example,
> if a poll shows that 60% of 100,000,000 voters support U.S. President
> Clinton, then we know that there are roughly 60,000,000 supporters.
> The poll may have asked less than 1000 voters whether or
> not they support President Clinton. Our conclusion is of course a
> logical extrapolation.

Betty's "cases" are a self-selected sample and thus not representative.
If you spread out on the whole internet that all Clinton supporters should
contact you, and a few thousand do, then you can hardly claim that there are
"hundreds of thousands" Clinton supporters.
Exaggeration weakens an argument, instead of strengthening it.