THE various writers (letters Dec 7) responding to my letter on the alleged dangers of wifi are playing the same game as the climate change deniers, though no doubt they would not wish to be associated with them.

They are on the one hand denying the very notion of scientific evidence whilst at the same time clutching at any scrap of evidence which appears to support their case.

So the distinction between myth and evidence is “spurious”?

I would agree that mythological stories, like any fictions, can carry important truths about human nature, ethics and so on.

But they do not help us to understand the workings of the material world in the way science can.

The sort of myth I was talking about spreads potentially dangerous untruths and exaggerations – for example that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Another myth cited by a previous writer as a parallel with the risks of wifi is that the Roman Empire collapsed because of its lead water pipes.

Also not true.

I am familiar with Popper’s work but neither he, nor Hume before him, sought to deny causality.

Indeed the writers of the letter clearly accept the concept of causality by claiming that wifi causes cancer!

Philosophical musings aside the difference between causation and association is well understood even if sometimes hard to discern in practice.

So was the slight increase in glioma associated with heavy mobile phone use caused by the phone or by some unrelated aspect of the users lifestyle?

We don’t know because we don’t have sufficient evidence.

One association I have noticed is that between wifi alarmists and believers in homeopathy, anthroposophy and similar forms of magical thinking.

It goes together with the rejection of science, or at least a crude mechanical view of science few scientists hold.

Strangely these magical thinkers love quantum physics because no one understands it so it can be used to bolster any ludicrous claims.

They also love to promote the idea that research is biased because funding often comes from the industries involved, whilst neglecting to mention that papers supporting their views come from the alternative medicine business.

For example the Dr Andrew Tresidder cited as an expert in wifi dangers in a previous letter has a website primarily devoted to “flower remedies”.

These supposedly capture the vibrational energies of flowers to treat a surprising range of ills, including those allegedly arising from wifi.

Neither I, nor I suspect these writers, are in a position to carry out primary research ourselves so we must rely on those who are.

I prefer to rely on the research of scientists rather than magical thinkers.

The difference is that science changes its mind if the evidence changes – in 1991 the World Health Organisation classed coffee as a “possible cause of cancer” (as it has classed wifi) but in 2016 it reversed this decision based on better evidence.

If convincing evidence emerges that wifi is a probable, not merely possible, health risk then I will have to change my mind.

It must be comforting to have a mindset that cannot be disturbed by facts.

Jim Watson

Selsley