It would be just as valid to ask what evidence would persuade me that the existing aeromedical regulations do effectively improve the safety of flight, because I don't have a firm belief one way or the other. I just feel that the discussion would be more useful if red herrings were left out of it.
I think the question of what is an appropriate level of evidence does enter into the political domain. Inevitably one has to ask, when are we justified enforcing a regulation — how strong should the evidence be before we are willing to do that?
I imagine we would agree that the government should not enforce a regulation preventing people from eating Doritos in flight just because someone at the FAA hates Doritos and prefers pretzels as a snack.
On the other side of the continuum of proof, I imagine we would also agree that people and by extension the government are justified in enforcing a regulation forbidding people from dive-bombing near other people’s houses dropping a kilogram of high explosive.
The latter is fairly obviously a clear and present danger to others and the former is just silly. The evidence for these seems rather clear and does not give rise to a scientific empirical question.
The question of the effectiveness of existing aeromedical regulations is a more subtle one. Thus the question of the standard of evidence to be applied in debating such regulations will become more critical.
I don’t mean it to be a distraction or red herring. But I think it is important to understand which differences in evaluation are due to different standards of evidence, reflecting a different view of the moral justification for regulations, and which are due to differences in interpreting the limited data. The former is essentially a philosophical difference; the latter is essentially empirical.
This is why I ask about the standards of evidence required for enforcing such regulations. Thus casting my query in the other light, how much evidence do you think should be required to enforce an aeromedical regulation? Is a good hunch sufficient? Some suggestive data? A preponderance of evidence they will reduce clear and present danger? Clear and convincing data that it will reduce a clear and present danger? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
The answer to that and it’s justification I think is inherently a philosophical or moral question. I honestly can’t see a way to avoid it. Certainly one can simply agree to a certain standard without debating it, but I do think in such subtle questions as this one has to have some agreed upon standard for discussions of the empirical questions to be truly meaningful.
I think it is particularly important in a case such as this, where I suspect you and I have a similar view of the data itself and its limitations. Our remaining differences may simply reflect different standards of evidence to be applied when trying to justify enforcement of a regulation.
