Root David H
Risk Anal. 2003 Aug;23(4):663-8. doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00345.
The scientific standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) include the use of retrospective meta-analysis. This analysis entails a use of the theory of probability that is only a simulation and cannot accurately measure the confidence that should be placed in the results. The uncertainty necessary for probability is, in a retrospective study, simulated rather than real. There are three logical forms for establishing a proposition. In the logic of the syllogism, a proposition is established by deduction from assumed propositions. In the logic of the physical sciences, a proposition is established by its ability to predict the outcomes of future experiments. In the logic of the courtroom, a proposition is established by its ability to explain past events. The logic of the courtroom operates under the handicap of working with nonrepeatable events. It is more subject to the preferences of the judge than the logic of the physical sciences or that of the syllogism. Because the logic of the courtroom is less reliable than either the logic of the physical sciences or that of the syllogism, it is the logic of last resort, i.e., it is used only when the other two are not applicable. Under the EPA scientific standards, the logic of the courtroom is accepted for establishing propositions about the physical world. As the logic of the courtroom is less reliable than that of the physical sciences, this practice increases the likelihood of errors.
美国环境保护局(EPA)的科学标准包括采用回顾性荟萃分析。这种分析需要运用概率理论,而这只是一种模拟,并不能准确衡量对结果应有的置信度。在回顾性研究中,概率所需的不确定性是模拟的而非真实的。确立一个命题有三种逻辑形式。在三段论逻辑中,一个命题是通过从假定的命题中推导出来而确立的。在物理科学逻辑中,一个命题是通过其预测未来实验结果的能力而确立的。在法庭逻辑中,一个命题是通过其解释过去事件的能力而确立的。法庭逻辑在处理不可重复事件的不利条件下运作。与物理科学逻辑或三段论逻辑相比,它更容易受到法官偏好的影响。由于法庭逻辑比物理科学逻辑或三段论逻辑都更不可靠,所以它是最后的手段,即只有在其他两种逻辑不适用时才使用。根据EPA的科学标准,法庭逻辑被接受用于确立关于物理世界的命题。由于法庭逻辑比物理科学逻辑更不可靠,这种做法增加了出错的可能性。