Deaths when not using helmet

[benb]

There is obviously an element of doubt in some peoples minds, to suppress that would be removing their right to freedom of thought and speech, or do you support that ?.

The point I was making is that your statement "if two people have a different view on a subject, then an element of doubt is always evident" only holds water if both parties are equally qualified in the area in question.

Flat-earthers exist, but there is no reasonable doubt that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Evolution is as well supported as any scientific theory, yet a good chunk of people doubt it. Some of them are scientists, but only a tiny handful are experts in the field, as the evidence is utterly compelling.

 

[ufkacbln]

The point I was making is that your statement "if two people have a different view on a subject, then an element of doubt is always evident" only holds water if both parties are equally qualified in the area in question.

Flat-earthers exist, but there is no reasonable doubt that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Evolution is as well supported as any scientific theory, yet a good chunk of people doubt it. Some of them are scientists, but only a tiny handful are experts in the field, as the evidence is utterly compelling.

The reason I used religion was not as a dig, but a demonstration

There are posters on here who openly rely on their faith and experience yet publish this as unequivocal proof.

Now whilst they are obviously entitled to do so, is it actually to the benefit of the readers

Equally the view that anything not totally worshipping at the altar of the helmet is anti-helmet and hate anyone who wears helmets is unhelpful and a worrying attempt to both deny and discredit valid and beneficial information

I am not an expert, but I know that helmets have limitations and disadvantages - it is important that this is known and stated, especially where some of the claims can be dangerous if believed

I am not sure whether both parties need to be equally qualified, and not practicable on an open site like this where open debate from everyone is to be encouraged, but certainly an open mind and ability to read and analyse what is posted to make their own decision is a good start

The difficulty I have with the flat earth analogy is that with helmets there is no definitive answer, and as with the Flying Spaghetti. Monster (May you be touched by his noodly appendage) is often used as a fun and useful way to exercise and illustrate debate and discussion in some areas.

Not all those who support His Noodliness or the Flat Earth are serious about it

 

[Red Light]

I'm having a problem now. I can manage to put aside a few minutes to read cyclechat but it seems I now have to go and read all the studies on helmets to decide whether I should wear one or not. I am not a fan of wearing a helmet but my family moan if I don't wear it and I like that even less. Will I really die if I wear a helmet? or is it possible that this rotational injury thing is as much a myth as helmets stop my head exploding every time I hit the floor. I am digressing a little. The point I am making is is it possible to make a decision on probability and experience? Do I have to know all information to make a decision? does this apply for everything in life, How is anything going to get done?

It shouldn't be a problem. If all you want to do is make a personal choice you can do that if you wish without reading all the studies. The risk of an accident in which it matters is miniscule so whether you wear one or not makes little difference in practice and compared to the health benefits you get from cycling not worth worrying about.

The issue only arises if you want to tell other people what to do. In which case it should be evidence not faith based.

There are some of us who, like your GP with all the studies on pharmaceutical and medical treatments, have read the studies and can advise from that perspective and some of us have the necessary training and experience to read and critically assess the studies. There are others on here who are equivalent to the snake oil salesmen. They have no real idea whether it works or not but they have lots of anecdotes of people that swear that their snake oil has cured all sorts of ills and you'd be an idiot not to take it.

If you want to make an informed personal choice you can take the advice of the GPs or snake oil salesmen. Again its your choice.

 

[twobiker]

The point I was making is that your statement "if two people have a different view on a subject, then an element of doubt is always evident" only holds water if both parties are equally qualified in the area in question.

Flat-earthers exist, but there is no reasonable doubt that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Evolution is as well supported as any scientific theory, yet a good chunk of people doubt it. Some of them are scientists, but only a tiny handful are experts in the field, as the evidence is utterly compelling.

Hypothetical example, 1, Man falls off bike no helmet hits head on ground, gets up walks away. ....2, Expert/Scientist Man wears helmet falls off hits head on ground ,gets up walks away, 2nd man is qualified, yet both man would have opposing views on helmets, which one is wrong ?

 

[twobiker]

The point I was making is that your statement "if two people have a different view on a subject, then an element of doubt is always evident" only holds water if both parties are equally qualified in the area in question.

Flat-earthers exist, but there is no reasonable doubt that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Evolution is as well supported as any scientific theory, yet a good chunk of people doubt it. Some of them are scientists, but only a tiny handful are experts in the field, as the evidence is utterly compelling.

Are you confusing doubt with scientific research,

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The point I was making is that your statement "if two people have a different view on a subject, then an element of doubt is always evident" only holds water if both parties are equally qualified in the area in question.

Flat-earthers exist, but there is no reasonable doubt that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Evolution is as well supported as any scientific theory, yet a good chunk of people doubt it. Some of them are scientists, but only a tiny handful are experts in the field, as the evidence is utterly compelling.

Who was it who said that science is not a democracy? Just because most people believe in a proof does not necessarily make it so

 

[benb]

Hypothetical example, 1, Man falls off bike no helmet hits head on ground, gets up walks away. ....2, Expert/Scientist Man wears helmet falls off hits head on ground ,gets up walks away, 2nd man is qualified, yet both man would have opposing views on helmets, which one is wrong ?

Neither of those examples are how science works. Personal opinion, anecdote, and unsupported claims have no place. That's why we do large scale studies, blinded, to reduce as much as possible our biases and preconceptions.

In your example, both men may have opposing views, depending how much weight they choose to give their own personal experiences, but both incidents tell us precisely nothing about whether bicycle helmets are effective or not.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Neither of those examples are how science works. Personal opinion, anecdote, and unsupported claims have no place. That's why we do large scale studies, blinded, to reduce as much as possible our biases and preconceptions.

In your example, both men may have opposing views, depending how much weight they choose to give their own personal experiences, but both incidents tell us precisely nothing about whether bicycle helmets are effective or not.

However it may taint any subsequent research they were to carry out.

 

[benb]

However it may taint any subsequent research they were to carry out.

Which is why wherever possible, we use blinding techniques to remove or reduce the experimenter's pre-existing biases and prejudices.

Also, if someone produced some research, and the results were not replicable, the sample size was too small, the methodology poor, or several other indicators of shoddy research, that expose of the poor original research would be made public by other scientists - often in the same journal. There are few things scientists like more than proving other scientists wrong.

And sometimes there is a study where the conclusions are little more than "we think there might be something going on here, but more research with bigger sample sizes is required before forming any conclusions" and this gets turned by the media into "scientists say that the colour green causes cancer".

That's not to say that the scientific method is always infallible; there are problems such as publication bias that should be better addressed. But on the whole, it has been the most successful route to reliably explaining the world.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Which is why wherever possible, we use blinding techniques to remove or reduce the experimenter's pre-existing biases and prejudices.

Also, if someone produced some research, and the results were not replicable, the sample size was too small, the methodology poor, or several other indicators of shoddy research, that expose of the poor original research would be made public by other scientists - often in the same journal. There are few things scientists like more than proving other scientists wrong.

And sometimes there is a study where the conclusions are little more than "we think there might be something going on here, but more research with bigger sample sizes is required before forming any conclusions" and this gets turned by the media into "scientists say that the colour green causes cancer".

That's not to say that the scientific method is always infallible; there are problems such as publication bias that should be better addressed. But on the whole, it has been the most successful route to reliably explaining the world.

Ben I know. I am just playing Devils Advocate

 

[benb]

To add: it's this ability, even an eagerness, to modify one's views when the evidence warrants it, that really differentiates science from religion/faith.

Religion or faith will basically say that if the evidence contradicts your beliefs, then it's the evidence that's wrong. Science is the opposite.
You're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own reality.

 

[benb]

Ben I know. I am just playing Devils Advocate

Nothing wrong with that - it often makes one properly examine one's viewpoint to really justify it.

 

[twobiker]

Neither of those examples are how science works. Personal opinion, anecdote, and unsupported claims have no place. That's why we do large scale studies, blinded, to reduce as much as possible our biases and preconceptions.

In your example, both men may have opposing views, depending how much weight they choose to give their own personal experiences, but both incidents tell us precisely nothing about whether bicycle helmets are effective or not.

Exactly , but my example does prove that an element of doubt exists. You cannot do a test for doubt.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Exactly , but my example does prove that an element of doubt exists. You cannot do a test for doubt.

Are you 100% sure about that?

 

[twobiker]

Are you 100% sure about that?

possibly