Deaths when not using helmet

[Canrider]

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".

Hmmm, and how did they know (or even suspect) the existence of bronze or steel before it was produced?

Hint: This..
"Sin-Ashubbi, there must be some other, unsuspected material both more resilient but softer than this stone we've been making our axes out of. Let's call it 'bronze'."
"You're right, Dur-Guligalzu, why don't we try mixing a variety of these substances we're suddenly going to call 'metals' together to find the combination that somehow produces this heretofore-unexpected substance?"

...is almost certainly not how we got to the Bronze Age.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

Actually you ard talking about science of the day, not personal experience.
As for your basic experiment you would need a control. Mine is seeing a head with a section oe bone missing after a MTB crash. Thus I wear a helmet. I care not what anyone else chooses to do.

 

[Canrider]

Actually you ard talking about science of the day, not personal experience.
As for your basic experiment you would need a control. Mine is seeing a head with a section oe bone missing after a MTB crash. Thus I wear a helmet. I care not what anyone else chooses to do.

1) That's not a 'control' in the usual experimental sense of the term.
2) Humans relying on 'personal experience' generally are not making use of case-control experimental methodologies, but rather inductive 'I took vitamin C when I had a cold and I feel that I got better quicker, therefore taking vitamin C when you have a cold 'cures your cold'.' reasoning.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

1) That's not a 'control' in the usual experimental sense of the term.
2) Humans relying on 'personal experience' generally are not making use of case-control experimental methodologies, but rather inductive 'I took vitamin C when I had a cold and I feel that I got better quicker, therefore taking vitamin C when you have a cold 'cures your cold'.' reasoning.

TBH I am fed up with this thread. It will just keep going round in circles with a belief that the other side are idiots. I'm droppind out now, with my helmet on!

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

It is!

Put it very basically, the stomach responds to stimuli and works faster with certain triggers.

This includes things like fat content, sugar content and the volume of the meal.

Fizzy drinks inflate the stomach which triggers off a faster transit, thus delivering stomach contents through to the small / large bowel quicker

As alcohol is absorbed in these areas, the quicker delivery means that you do actually get drunk quicker!

 

[ufkacbln]

Which is an example of why "Evidence" is more universal and transferable than personal experience. What happens if you do not have a personal experience to fall back upon, where do you go from here?



Take the "banging your head against a wall" experiment.

The experiment involves banging your head against a wall with and without some form of protection.

One person's personal experience leads to the fact that only cycle helmets work and should be worn

One person's personal experience leads to the fact that other materials could provide the same result and could be substituted for the helmet

One person's personal experience leads to the fact that canteloupes work and should be won

One person's personal experience would lead to the fact that not banging your head on the wall in the first place is the answer, and taking measures to decrease the chances of doing so


When you get someone who has never banged their head, and has no personal experience - which should they take?

The Canteloupe and both satisfy the aim of reducing the sensation of being hurt, but how does that person decide which is for them?

Do they take the advice to minimise their risk of banging their head, or to protect with a cycle helmet...

Then comes the additional problem of the background to the decision. A fruit vendor may have a lot of experrince of Canteloupes, and based their decision on the fact that they wish to sell more canteloupes.... has the wish to sell overridden the decision making process?

 

[Mark_Robson]

So it follows personal experience is science .

IMO yes.

 

[lukesdad]

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.

So what happens when you drink soda on its own ?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So what happens when you drink soda on its own ?

AKA A control

 

[ufkacbln]

AKA A control

You don't get drunk

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You don't get drunk

Next control - Vodka, et al without soda.

 

[Mark_Robson]

Hmmm, and how did they know (or even suspect) the existence of bronze or steel before it was produced?

Hint: This..
"Sin-Ashubbi, there must be some other, unsuspected material both more resilient but softer than this stone we've been making our axes out of. Let's call it 'bronze'."
"You're right, Dur-Guligalzu, why don't we try mixing a variety of these substances we're suddenly going to call 'metals' together to find the combination that somehow produces this heretofore-unexpected substance?"

...is almost certainly not how we got to the Bronze Age.

What almost certainly happened was that bronze was stumbled upon by accident and then refined by trial and error because someone saw it's possibilities.

So the question is when does personal experience become experimentation?

 

[Canrider]

What almost certainly happened was that bronze was stumbled upon by accident and then refined by trial and error because someone saw it's possibilities.

So the question is when does personal experience become experimentation?

Very infrequently, especially outside the realm of infants and young children.

The main difficulty in this debate is the melding of the terms 'science', 'scientific method' and 'experiment', with people behaving as if they are all fairly synonymous. They aren't. It is possible, for example, to have a science which is incapable of conducting formal experiments. Astronomy is as good an example as any: it is impossible to 'trial and error' astronomical observations, instead you have to rely on searching for and spotting the phenomenon that provides evidence that your hypothesis is not incorrect.

In fact, 'trial and error' in the usual sense is not generally used in scientific study, except in limited situations or at the very beginning of examining a given problem. It also features more heavily in the applied sciences, for example searching for a new antibiotic, where a variety of chemicals might be trialled-and-errored in the search for one with the required properties.

To relate this to cycle helmet design and testing: You wouldn't, for ethical reasons if nothing else, try to find a useful head-in-bicycle-crash-protection-measure by dropping real people on the crown of their skulls whist wearing a variety of headgear from a given height. That might 'prove' that a watermelon helmet has less impact absorption than a Styrofoam one (or not, as the case may be), but it wouldn't tell you very much about all the disparate variables that might be in operation during a genuine bicycling crash with attendant head-impact-on-tarmac.

 

[lukesdad]

Lets go back to the origins of the wheel for a moment, which would be the more likely ? Man drawing a circle in the sand and thinking that would work (science of the day). Or man rolling his rock on a couple of logs to get it from A to B (-personal experience- science ?) Its down to definitions. Of course scientists would like to claim step forwards have been down to them it adds weight to their studies now.

While on the subject of weight, science does not give a lot to faith. Yet they require us to have plenty of it when it comes to us believing their studies and reports.

Mmm science wants it all ways !

 

[david k]

Lets look at some of the logic provided towards experience against or complimenting science.

If we looked at ten pin bowling, a specific ball is used to knock down the pins. Who decided this? Was it science and/or experience? I mean a canteloupe would also roll down and knock pins over. Who designed these balls and didnt consider using fruit, it is also round and heavy and would do the job just as well with simply 3 holes cut out. They offer additional advantage if not completly round as this can support swerving to curl round and knock down pins.

Some people may say it will go off, or isn't as robust as a ball, or you may have to keep buying canteloupes. However, we are only rolling them it's not as if we are taking the trouble to cut them out and put them on our heads as safety protection! However, what would you think of somebody if they did, we may ask why they arrived at this decision, have they based it on faith alone or have they completed mountains of research. Does an individuals decision to use a canteloupe require mountains of research or can we allow freedom of choice based on persons own experience to allow them to make a decision to use a canteloupe during ten pin bowling?

Or would you just consider somebody even discussing canteloupes as very very odd indeed?