ab2a1bb1   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: pmcook@gte.net   
      
   On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:30:24 +0000, chris wrote:   
      
   > None is needed. You are making an argument based on a hypothesis and   
   > data. All one needs to do to refute it is to pick holes in it. The data   
   > cannot prove your hypothesis therefore your argument is flawed. End of   
   > story.   
   >   
   > One *could* have an alternative hypothesis which contradicts yours, but   
   > no one here is holding this position other than you. And your   
   > alternative argument is equally flawed. So you're arguing with yourself   
   > and both arguments are unprovable with the accident data. Now *that* is   
   > extraordinary.   
      
   Hi Chris,   
      
   I answered, in detail, your concerns (I think) in the prior two posts,   
   but, allow me to summarize, were I to be sitting in front of you beside   
   a warm crackling fire, where we both were sipping wine, and discussing   
   the issue.   
      
   The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that our "intuition" (yes, yours,   
   mine, and everyone else's intuition) clearly would "think" that the user   
   of a cellphone while driving would be distracted to the point of having   
   more accidents than a user who wasn't distracted by the use of the cellphone.   
      
   However, I can't *find* those accidents.   
   Neither can you.   
   Neither can anyone else!   
      
     *Where are the accidents?*   
      
   More specifically, why don't the accidents show up in reliable data   
   (that was not designed specifically to grab headlines)?   
      
   Why do the accidents *only* show up in the so-called "studies" that   
   attempt to *prove* [sic] that cellphone use is inherently dangerous?   
      
   I repeat the fundamental question:   
     * Where are the accidents predicted by the model? *   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)