Deaths when not using helmet

[Angelfishsolo]

My suggestion is , ignore them and refer to the published, peer reviewed papers. Others have different views and prefer to count noses.

What happens when papers disagree with each other?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

What happens when papers disagree with each other?

You start an informed debate.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You start an informed debate.

Each of those papers was peer reviewed though. This in itself is enough to show that peer review is not 100% successful in establishing if a paper is provided a conclusive proof.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Each of those papers was peer reviewed though. This in itself is enough to show that peer review is not 100% successful in establishing if a paper is provided a conclusive proof.

You answered that question yourself last night, when debating with somone else, no proof is 100% . There is a scale of scientific uncertainty , the problem being that those who choose to rely on "common sense " and "experience" will often use everyday language to pick that apart; so then when they find that "scientific certainty" is any thing over 95% they then cling to the <5% as "PROOF" that the therory is incorrect. They convieninetly step outside science to everyday English , and then step back in again when they want to.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You answered that question yourself last night, when debating with somone else, no proof is 100% . There is a scale of scientific uncertainty , the problem being that those who choose to rely on "common sense " and "experience" will often use everyday language to pick that apart; so then when they find that "scientific certainty" is any thing over 95% they then cling to the <5% as "PROOF" that the therory is incorrect. They convieninetly step outside science to everyday English , and then step back in again when they want to.

What I am getting at is that if two papers are published on say Climate Change and one says the world will end in fire, the other ice and both get peer reviewed and published there is either a glaring error in the Peer review system or the science available to come to such conclusions.

 

[Red Light]

Yes a perfect case of mejia distorting science. Have you read any papers on climate change, can you dispute the theory of man made climate change , ot are you simply going to use " It was colder today than it was last year so climate change can't be true"?

The serious climate scientists I know say that there is now no doubt that climate change is happening but whether it is anthropogenic is unknown although it does appear to be the most plausible cause. That message changes when the medya and politics gets hold of it as they fly off en masse to yet another long haul location to talk concernedly about it or report on it.

I particularly liked the Cameron comment in his early days of Prime Minister when the BBC were quizzing him on the greenness of his cycling to Parliament to which he replied along the lines of the journey was quite green until you sent a helicopter up to film it.

 

[twobiker]

Can I take it then that you haven't fully read two scientific papers on either what drink does what, or Climate Change ( You changed horses mid rant ) ?
I must thank you however, you have admirably proved my point that it is not "Science" that is at fault for changing it's message, but sloppy reporting and lazy reading.

I don't rant , just take exception to people with their nose up their b**s, your situation is not tenable, you have been forced to accept that Scientists do not all speak with one voice, or would be if you could be bothered to Google it, and your obvious reluctance to admit this does you no credit, you can agree or disagree with Global Warming, use whichever Scientific body you choose to, to provide whatever answer you would like to be the truth, but next time do not be so hasty in believing that you know it all.

 

[Red Light]

Each of those papers was peer reviewed though. This in itself is enough to show that peer review is not 100% successful in establishing if a paper is provided a conclusive proof.

No scientist ever sees peer review as a process to filter out everything but conclusive proofs nor is it a way to repress views that don't conform with a particular conclusion. Its is simply a basic filter to say is the methodology and results properly explained and are there any serious flaws in it. No scientist would take the view that because its peer reviewed it must be right - peer review is not a perfect process and there are plenty of crap and flawed papers out there as the field of helmet research amply demonstrates. You still need to read them and apply critical judgement to the contents and if working in the field attend some of the many workshops, seminars and conferences where these things are debated

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I don't rant , just take exception to people with their nose up their b**s, your situation is not tenable, you have been forced to accept that Scientists do not all speak with one voice, or would be if you could be bothered to Google it, and your obvious reluctance to admit this does you no credit, you can agree or disagree with Global Warming, use whichever Scientific body you choose to, to provide whatever answer you would like to be the truth, but next time do not be so hasty in believing that you know it all.

I have the feeling that you have never studied science beyond O level? Can I suggest you read my comment about scientific certainty ?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

No scientist ever sees peer review as a process to filter out everything but conclusive proofs nor is it a way to repress views that don't conform with a particular conclusion. Its is simply a basic filter to say is the methodology and results properly explained and are there any serious flaws in it. No scientist would take the view that because its peer reviewed it must be right - peer review is not a perfect process and there are plenty of crap and flawed papers out there as the field of helmet research amply demonstrates. You still need to read them and apply critical judgement to the contents and if working in the field attend some of the many workshops, seminars and conferences where these things are debated

Yet still we have a situation where two conflicting view points can exist. What is flawed, the Science, the data interpretation, or the human element?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

. You still need to read them and apply critical judgement to the contents

That being two of the key points, as opposed to believe everything someone else said who hasn't even read all of it!

We keep coming back to the same thing, if it's helmet's or Climate Change, those that read the papers have an informed viewpoint, those that rely on reports from the media or common sense don't. The difference seems to be that scientists don't insist resort to calling the other side names!

 

[Red Light]

There is a scale of scientific uncertainty , the problem being that those who choose to rely on "common sense " and "experience" will often use everyday language to pick that apart; so then when they find that "scientific certainty" is any thing over 95% they then cling to the <5% as "PROOF" that the therory is incorrect. They convieninetly step outside science to everyday English , and then step back in again when they want to.

Read the list of the top 20 logical fallacies most of which have been used here.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Yet still we have a situation where two conflicting view points can exist. What is flawed, the Science, the data interpretation, or the human element?

Any combination of the above.

 

[Red Light]

Yet still we have a situation where two conflicting view points can exist. What is flawed, the Science, the data interpretation, or the human element?

They can exist for a whole load of reasons. For example it can be lack of knowledge - there isn't enough information, knowledge or understanding to distinguish between the view points. This is the case for several of the fundamental physics theories and experiments are going on at the Large Hadron Collider to try and differentiate between them. Or it can be the result of poor or fraudulent science e.g. the creationist v science argument. But science is a dynamic subject where views and theories change as new information or thinking comes forward, it corrects its mistakes and as Einstein said, its not democratic.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Any combination of the above.

Thank you. Thus Science is not a panacea as I have previously stated.