Deaths when not using helmet

[Angelfishsolo]

The difference is that there always was science, and probably critical appraisal of that science and dissemination it simply wasn't called that.......

Good ideas are promoted and poor ones stifled

Or vica versa depending on the agenda of the powers that be.

 

[Mark_Robson]

The difference is that there always was science, and probably critical appraisal of that science and dissemination it simply wasn't called that.......

Good ideas are promoted and poor ones stifled

My point exactly.......I think

Trial and error is science.

The guys who harnessed fire, bronze, steel or even the bouncing bomb probably didn't think, "wow that's good science" they probably thought, "well after x amounts of attempts it now works". Yes sometimes science gets it wrong but all the things that Red Light quoted didn't come about because of trial and error, they were the result of untried or ill thought out silly ideas.

 

[Red Light]

Has anyone told you that you have a tendency to come across as being very condescending and pretentious?

I love you too Mark

How does evidence based medicine work?

Evidence based medicine

 

[Mark_Robson]

I love you too Mark



Evidence based medicine

So evidence based medicine comes from trial and error, or is there another way to assess current best evidence?

Sorry to be pedantic but I want to clarify the importance of trial and error in all aspects of human development.

 

[lukesdad]

So the invention of the wheel probably the greatest of them all was down to science was it ?

 

[Mark_Robson]

So the invention of the wheel probably the greatest of them all was down to science was it ?

I would say that it was down to trial and error, which is science from the days when science didn't exist.

 

[lukesdad]

I would say that it was down to trial and error, which is science from the days when science didn't exist.

Fair enough so would you say personal experience would equal trial and error ?

 

[Mark_Robson]

Fair enough so would you say personal experience would equal trial and error ?

Yep on a personal scale. It's how we learn.

 

[lukesdad]

So it follows personal experience is science .

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So it follows personal experience is science .

And counts for more than facts and figures.

 

[ufkacbln]

I would suggest that things have changed, and as the matters get more complex then the amount of trial and error decreases and science increases.

Medicine is a good (and bad) example.

Gone are the days when you can notice that milkmaids with cow pox don't suffer small pox, then (without their informed consent) start infecting people with cow pox on your own intution and personal experience.

Looking at the number of the original radiographers who suffered appaling radiation damage to their hands as they used personalexperience to set up the machines.

Now you would have to investigate, publish, peer review critically appraise and establish the veracity of each step before roceeding and then eventually if all of the research was accepted then start work with testing the drugs etc....

Personal experience may be the trigger, but in the modern age the necessity is to use the rigors of scientific debate to gain credibility.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I would suggest that things have changed, and as the matters get more complex then the amount of trial and error decreases and science increases.

Medicine is a good (and bad) example.

Gone are the days when you can notice that milkmaids with cow pox don't suffer small pox, then (without their informed consent) start infecting people with cow pox on your own intution and personal experience.

Looking at the number of the original radiographers who suffered appaling radiation damage to their hands as they used personalexperience to set up the machines.

Now you would have to investigate, publish, peer review critically appraise and establish the veracity of each step before roceeding and then eventually if all of the research was accepted then start work with testing the drugs etc....

Personal experience may be the trigger, but in the modern age the necessity is to use the rigors of scientific debate to gain credibility.

I does seem however to be the trigger point for much of the greatest discoveries.

 

[ufkacbln]

Often though we need to make decisions and take part in debates where we cannot have a complete "personal knowledge" of the subject, and need to rely on the experience and research of others.

In the modern age this varies from the "scientific paper" to an article in "Hello" or "Chat" magazines

There needs to be some method of deciding how valid that information is.

Without this it simply degenerates into a "my experience is ... so you must follow my decision"


We have to recognise that this is the case, especially when conflicting information is presented.

In a debate like the helmet debate, we have information that is presented and is often erroneous, deliberately misleading and misinterpreted - unless there is a deeper understanding this can be missed.

Is personal experience on its own good enough as a justification for a decision at this level?





The original table is an example, and altough you may not realise this - look again at the first posts and see how the data has been questioned, shortcomings raised and discussed as opposed to simply slapping polystyrene on our heads in blind obedience

Presented evidence and whether it should be accepted or refuted depends on the expert, the research performed and how it was performed.

What was the bias, was the data collected properly and verified. Does it stand up to peer review. Are the results limited in their application or are they transferable to other similar or disparate groups.

Critical analysis of the evidence and form an informed conclusion of that particular instance is the answer to deciding whether that information is valid.

You cannot simply accept the information as "beyond doubt", or if you do then do you need to be consistent

For instance, an example I have used elsewhere:

Lets accept that we should listen to the College of Emergency Medicine and listen to their advice when they promote helmets. This is because they are experts in A&E Medicine and know what they are talking about.

If we accept this without any critical appraisal of their evidence then it follows that as the "Thudguard" is promoted by the same organisation,we should also accept the recommendation without question.


You cannot simply advocate accepting one and not the other without justifyingthat in a measured and reasonable way

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Often though we need to make decisions and take part in debates where we cannot have a complete "personal knowledge" of the subject, and need to rely on the experience and research of others.

In the modern age this varies from the "scientific paper" to an article in "Hello" or "Chat" magazines

There needs to be some method of deciding how valid that information is.

Without this it simply degenerates into a "my experience is ... so you must follow my decision"


We have to recognise that this is the case, especially when conflicting information is presented.

In a debate like the helmet debate, we have information that is presented and is often erroneous, deliberately misleading and misinterpreted - unless there is a deeper understanding this can be missed.

Is personal experience on its own good enough as a justification for a decision at this level?

Presented evidence and whether it should be accepted or refuted depends on the expert, the research performed and how it was performed.

What was the bias, was the data collected properly and verified. Does it stand up to peer review. Are the results limited in their application or are they transferable to other similar or disparate groups.

Critical analysis of the evidence and form an informed conclusion of that particular instance is the answer to deciding whether that information is valid.

You cannot simply accept the information as "beyond doubt", or if you do then do you need to be consistent

For instance, an example I have used elsewhere:

Lets accept that we should listen to the College of Emergency Medicine and listen to their advice when they promote helmets. This is because they are experts in A&E Medicine and know what they are talking about.

If we accept this without any critical appraisal of their evidence then it follows that as the "Thudguard" is promoted by the same organisation,we should also accept the recommendation without question.


You cannot simply advocate accepting one and not the other without justifyingthat in a measured and reasonable way

A very good point. On the issue of the helmet debate I admit to being swamped by conflicting data. Thus I elect to rely on personal experience. Does that make sense?

 

[Canrider]

A very good point. On the issue of the helmet debate I admit to being swamped by conflicting data. Thus I elect to rely on personal experience. Does that make sense?

Yes, it's a very 'sensible' human reaction.

For example, personal experience in the absence of any kind of experimental controls was the reason we spent about 2000 years absolutely convinced that the best evidence entirely supported the notion that the body was made up of four humours, and that disease was an imbalance of those humours.

Analogously, and with some basic experimental control, I find that I become drunk after drinking whisky and soda, vodka and soda, and gin and soda. On this basis, I conclude that the soda is the intoxicant.