Deaths when not using helmet

[Red Light]

Logical fallacies they may be, but often true none the less. People who's profession is 'scientific' are still people. Despite being termed 'Scientists' and their research being accepted as 'Science' they often get emotionally involved in what they are trying to prove (like the professor of microbiology I had who had "proved that it was not possible to cook a turkey properly if it was stuffed" because he'd measured the internal temperature of a bird his wife was cooking and it never got above (I think it was 90C)).

More logical fallacies. On that basis we cannot believe anything Christians say. Christianity says don't murder and don't steal and don't commit adultery but some Christians do kill, steal and commit adultery. Therefore nothing Christians say can be believed.

See the fallacy?

 

[Red Light]

It is, however, widely known that many of the worlds pioneering scientists are deeply religious. I've always found this an odd given the science vs religion arguments

Is it? And why?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Ouch! Sorry about that! The dreaded wiki effect.

It is, however, widely known that many of the worlds pioneering scientists are deeply religious.

Evidence?

You see ?

You're in science world now, there are rules, you can't just say XYZ and expect to get away with it, you have to prove your assertions with evidence; that is "science" !

In the mejia, you can get away with saying "It is, however, widely known that ..." and expect to be believed, in science world you can't!

 

[rowan 46]

Sorry wrong forum. Thought I was in the pub

But seeing as I'm here this is my personal experience. I have ridden for many years without a helmet and not been killed and have ridden for some years with a helmet and not been killed. I ride carefully and have perhaps been lucky in never having an accident. As many better riders than me have had an accident I must conclude that chance has been a big element in my survival. I therefore propose compulsory carrying of rabbit feet for cyclists.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Sorry wrong forum. Thought I was in the pub

But seeing as I'm here this is my personal experience. I have ridden for many years without a helmet and not been killed and have ridden for some years with a helmet and not been killed. I ride carefully and have perhaps been lucky in never having an accident. As many better riders than me have had an accident I must conclude that chance has been a big element in my survival. I therefore propose compulsory carrying of rabbit feet for cyclists.

It's common sense , innit?

 

[twobiker]

For the second time, there are to many variables to make it a subject which can be answered by Science, If you rode your whole life wearing a helmet and then got hit by a truck which killed you, would that mean that helmets didn't save lives ? or would all the years you rode unscathed prove that helmets saved lives but not in every situation ?.

 

[tigger]

Evidence?

You see ?

You're in science world now, there are rules, you can't just say XYZ and expect to get away with it, you have to prove your assertions with evidence; that is "science" !

In the mejia, you can get away with saying "It is, however, widely known that ..." and expect to be believed, in science world you can't!

I gave you the evidence, you didn't like the source or maybe the findings, so you chose to ignore it... thats science in action too I suppose?

Seriously, of course you can't necessarily believe wiki entries, but the sources are generally good on this one I think. Its an area which was covered in my history degree and interestingly in some science modules of my learned friends too. Do a google search... you'll find plenty about it

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Either I can't explain, you don't want to understand, don't want to admit you understand, or can't understand.

Either way I've broken one of my rules, "never discuss religion" your refusal to accept science and your acceptance of belief in your own experince is a close to religion as makes no difference , I apologise for insulting your religios beliefs.

I have no religious beliefs. I am pointing out that Science has become the new church and that we now pray its' alter.

 

[Dan B]

For the second time, there are to many variables to make it a subject which can be answered by Science, If you rode your whole life wearing a helmet and then got hit by a truck which killed you, would that mean that helmets didn't save lives ? or would all the years you rode unscathed prove that helmets saved lives but not in every situation ?.

No, and no. The best you could hope to prove with that little data is that a particular helmet failed to save a particular life on a particular occasion, but that it may (or may not) have done so on other occasions. If you had lots more data, and if you counted that data carefully, and if you analysed it to account for "confounding factors" - other things that were different between one situation and the next that might also have accounted for the end results of those situations - you could maybe work out a number showing how likely a helmet is to save someone's life in general according to your data, and another number which would tell you how trustworthy the first number is



If you do this properly, it's called "statistics". It's usually considered to be a branch of science.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I have no religious beliefs. I am pointing out that Science has become the new church and that we now pray its' alter.

" your refusal to accept science and your acceptance of belief in your own experince is as close to religion as makes no difference"

 

[Angelfishsolo]

" your refusal to accept science and your acceptance of belief in your own experince is as close to religion as makes no difference"

I do not refuse to accept science. I simply do not believe it is a panacea.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I do not refuse to accept science. I simply do not believe it is a panacea.

"



Once again I will state that this is like a Science v Faith debate. The only people who can see both sides are those who hold no beliefs.





They call those people " Scientists"!


Crap.


"


and we go round again.... those who do not hold a preset belief in a result are called scientists. Not only do you declare that as "crap", you also reject science in place of faith in your own exeperience ( do I need to hunt your words down for that?) it seems that you want to accept science has an answer if it agrees with your "common sense". Faith in something you can't measure, whilst ignoring what can be measured is as close to religion as makes no difference.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I gave you the evidence, you didn't like the source or maybe the findings, so you chose to ignore it... thats science in action too I suppose?

Seriously, of course you can't necessarily believe wiki entries, but the sources are generally good on this one I think. Its an area which was covered in my history degree and interestingly in some science modules of my learned friends too. Do a google search... you'll find plenty about it

How impressed were your tutors in your suggestion that you didn't need to provide sources , but if they wanted to they could Google it?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

"



Once again I will state that this is like a Science v Faith debate. The only people who can see both sides are those who hold no beliefs.





They call those people " Scientists"!


Crap.


"


and we go round again.... those who do not hold a preset belief in a result are called scientists. Not only do you declare that as "crap", you also reject science in place of faith in your own exeperience ( do I need to hunt your words down for that?) it seems that you want to accept science has an answer if it agrees with your "common sense". Faith in something you can't measure, whilst ignoring what can be measured is as close to religion as makes no difference.

It is really annoying isn't it when someone deliberately states bollox for the hell of it. Rather like calling dogs "Turd Dispensers" in fact.

 

[twobiker]

No, and no. The best you could hope to prove with that little data is that a particular helmet failed to save a particular life on a particular occasion, but that it may (or may not) have done so on other occasions. If you had lots more data, and if you counted that data carefully, and if you analysed it to account for "confounding factors" - other things that were different between one situation and the next that might also have accounted for the end results of those situations - you could maybe work out a number showing how likely a helmet is to save someone's life in general according to your data, and another number which would tell you how trustworthy the first number is


If you do this properly, it's called "statistics". It's usually considered to be a branch of science.

But for every yes there is a no, for every scientist telling us one thing there is another saying something else,how does that confirm or deny anything?.