>I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that gay men are not a
>high risk group? I think it would be silly to stand on ceremony when the
>evidence is that on an average, they are a high risk group. As to what
>it tells us, that's something altogether different.
a public health expert such as Richard Levins may ask: does a significant statistical difference in the characteristic of interest between the contrast classes prove that the criterion used for setting up the groups is indeed causally significant?
>Indeed there is information useful for action. Namely it is unnecessary
>to promote undue alarm and fear amongst straight people who are unlikely
>to get Aids.
Straight women are unlikely to get Aids?
>In fact, Aids charities target their health campaigns at gay men. In
>terms of the places they advertise, and the content of their health
>message, the Terrence Higgins Trust and other Aids charities orient
>their campaigns to gay men. And rightly so.
Can't we partition this reference class (gayness) into relevant factors? Perhaps gayness in itself is statistically relevant to the explanandum fact but it may not be causally relevant.
>What is unnecessarily alarmist, is the government health campaigns that
>seek to frighten young people out of sexual activity by threatening them
>with the unlikely prospect of contracting aids through heterosexual
>intercourse.
For which heterosexual women is the contraction of Aids unlikely?
>
> >Is this useful information or an invidious
> >distinction?
>
>Useful information, in my opinion.
>
>Of course it could be used to reinforce invidious distinctions. But it
>would be a mistake to deny the facts because they can be twisted to
>malevolent purposes.
So you think that an objective datum speaks for itself?
Sincerely, Jan
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com