Deaths when not using helmet

[Little yellow Brompton]

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.

I don't know, is it?

I'm not annoyed, I don't get annoyed anymore at people when I realise that their decisions are based upon faith. There is no point trying to persaude anyone with facts if there is a faith invloved.

As for calling dogs that shoot in public areas" turd dispensers" , it's a factually accurateand description. I don't get annoyed by accurate descriptions, do you?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

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?.

Have you ever read, or seen, a full scientific paper?

What you are talking about ( above) is the mejia reading the one paragraph summation , stripping out the caveats and probabilities and making a "story" , and if it can disagree with something previously made a "story" all the better. That's not a problem with science, it's one of journalism.

 

[MontyVeda]

Have you ever read, or seen, a full scientific paper?

What you are talking about ( above) is the mejia reading the one paragraph summation , stripping out the caveats and probabilities and making a "story" , and if it can disagree with something previously made a "story" all the better. That's not a problem with science, it's one of journalism.

Bob on!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I don't know, is it?

I'm not annoyed, I don't get annoyed anymore at people when I realise that their decisions are based upon faith. There is no point trying to persaude anyone with facts if there is a faith invloved.

As for calling dogs that shoot in public areas" turd dispensers" , it's a factually accurateand description. I don't get annoyed by accurate descriptions, do you?

Thus a human who farts in a public place is a fart dispenser. There is more to dogs than producing turds and thus it is as accurate a description as calling Science the new Religion or church.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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?.

Nothing in Science is ever proven. Proofs are put forward is all.

 

[MontyVeda]

This reminds me of one of those teenage pub arguments/heated debates... one guy claiming that science cannot prove anything, only put forward evidence and state that the results suggest this that or the other... and everybody else claimed he was talking out of his arse.. on and on it went, for seeming ly hours round and round in circles until he claimed 'they'd proved it!' .... what was this thread about again?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

This reminds me of one of those teenage pub arguments/heated debates... one guy claiming that science cannot prove anything, only put forward evidence and state that the results suggest this that or the other... and everybody else claimed he was talking out of his arse.. on and on it went, for seeming ly hours round and round in circles until he claimed 'they'd proved it!' .... what was this thread about again?

It is universally accepted that in any field of Science there are only ever proofs and not Proof.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Thus a human who farts in a public place is a fart dispenser. There is more to dogs than producing turds and thus it is as accurate a description as calling Science the new Religion or church.

If you want to call them that, feel free, I won't try to stop you. I like free speech. As for there being more to dogs, can I suggest that you look up the theories concerning perspectives and world views , you will then possibly see that whilst perpectives and worldviews can, and do ,change definitions of science and religion can't . I know it's an attractive sound bite that "Science is the new religion" but it cannot be true because as I pointed out earlier, science and religion are polar opposites as to the requirement of proof. Just because a journalist says "Science is the new religion" doesn't make it true much as because a journalsit says " Scinetists says XXXX!!!!!!" is also probably not true.


To recap , again.

Science requires proof, religion requires belief.
You beleive a helmet works , in the face of science, to me that makes your belief, religion. Your perspective might vary, Checkland recomends problem solving by considering many perspectives , can I suggest you consider your perspective and worldview in relation to helmets and compare them with your persepctives and worldviews of other parts of science that you don't understand but do accept?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Nothing in Science is ever proven. Proofs are put forward is all.

Which is where a scientific method derives it's power. It's also the most difficult concept to get across to someone who's contact with science is through the mejia.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

If you want to call them that, feel free, I won't try to stop you. I like free speech. As for there being more to dogs, can I suggest that you look up the theories concerning perspectives and world views , you will then possibly see that whilst perpectives and worldviews can, and do ,change definitions of science and religion can't . I know it's an attractive sound bite that "Science is the new religion" but it cannot be true because as I pointed out earlier, science and religion are polar opposites as to the requirement of proof. Just because a journalist says "Science is the new religion" doesn't make it true much as because a journalsit says " Scinetists says XXXX!!!!!!" is also probably not true.


To recap , again.

Science requires proof, religion requires belief.
You beleive a helmet works , in the face of science, to me that makes your belief, religion. Your perspective might vary, Checkland recomends problem solving by considering many perspectives , can I suggest you consider your perspective and worldview in relation to helmets and compare them with your persepctives and worldviews of other parts of science that you don't understand but do accept?

OK let stake quantum physics. It can be shown that light travels in waves. It can also be shown that light travels in particles. Both proofs are valid. To prove one state however is to disprove another. Quantum physics is in essence a science based on faith in the ideas that support it.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Which is where a scientific method derives it's power. It's also the most difficult concept to get across to someone who's contact with science is through the mejia.

My contact with science is not through the media I assure you. I agree I am bending the definition of terms here but bare with me. In older religions a sacrifice to the gods followed by whatever it was the sacrifice was for was a proof that 1/the gods existed and 2/they approved. Conversely is what was wanted did not happen it was proof that the gods existed and were unhappy. Yes flawed logic, but no more so than say the Science that proved the MMR injection caused Autism.

 

[Ian 74]

When I was a soldier I wore a helmet to help prevent bullets inadvertently messing up my hair... Years later now I am a cyclist I have swapped one helmet for another, the idea kind of being the same but with the bullet being replaced by the road, curb, tree etc.

The body is a sturdy thing and can take a lot of punishment, I know this from over 10 years of emergency theatre and A+E experience, ruptured spleens, tension pneumothorax, broken bones and lots of other bodily injuries have I seen. When somebody came in with a head injury from an RTA or fall etc they didn't normally have a helmet, if they had I feel that their resultant intercranial bleed may not have happened. That is the conclusion that I have drawn, I don't need science or statistics to back this up for myself and i believe in using my experience and common sense: ergo If I have to bang my head on the floor then I would like a protective barrier between my skull and the point of impact.

 

[rowan 46]

My contact with science is not through the media I assure you. I agree I am bending the definition of terms here but bare with me. In older religions a sacrifice to the gods followed by whatever it was the sacrifice was for was a proof that 1/the gods existed and 2/they approved. Conversely is what was wanted did not happen it was proof that the gods existed and were unhappy. Yes flawed logic, but no more so than say the Science that proved the MMR injection caused Autism.

with respect , not a good analogy part of the mantra of good science is reliablity, for those who don't know that is its repeatability. the results of the autism study were not only found to be unreliable, the data was actually faked. which i believe was the reason the doctor was struck off.

 

[Ian 74]

with respect , not a good analogy part of the mantra of good science is reliablity, for those who don't know that is its repeatability. the results of the autism study were not only found to be unreliable, the data was actually faked. which i believe was the reason the doctor was struck off.

naughty.

 

[twobiker]

Have you ever read, or seen, a full scientific paper?

What you are talking about ( above) is the mejia reading the one paragraph summation , stripping out the caveats and probabilities and making a "story" , and if it can disagree with something previously made a "story" all the better. That's not a problem with science, it's one of journalism.

IT is not the media , one week a drink is good for you the next week some other research says its bad, do not try to put the blame on the media,it is the only thing that keeps all these scientists in a job.