Who wears a helmet?

[theclaud]

Religion is just a way for humans to avoid saying those horrible words: "I don't know". For some reason we feel we have to know everything and if there is something we don't know, we invent an aspect of religion to explain it. This has been going on for time immemorable.

Primitive Farmer 1: Hey why are the crops doing better?
PF 2: I think it's something to do with this period of time we're in when it's warmer than that other period of time. I think it's got something to do with that big yellow thing.
PF1: Well obviously we don't want that big yellow thing to go away, better worship it.

And there is the beginnings of the Sun God. Move forward several thousand years and just phenomenom that needs explaining has changed.

Is that especially silly? It's just a way of acknowledging the sun's importance to life, isn't it? Which is pretty much what srw was saying.

 

[martint235]

Is that especially silly? It's just a way of acknowledging the sun's importance to life, isn't it? Which is pretty much what srw was saying.

Yes I agree with that but it's now moved on somewhat to a point where although religions are created to explain things we don't know (rather than just saying we don't know), the organised religions feel they also have a right to interfere in our daily lives regardless of whether or not we are active believers.

Still this probably isn't the thread for this.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Yes I agree with that but it's now moved on somewhat to a point where although religions are created to explain things we don't know (rather than just saying we don't know), the organised religions feel they also have a right to interfere in our daily lives regardless of whether or not we are active believers.

Still this probably isn't the thread for this.

Seems like the right thread, Helmet advocacy is a religion, those that advocate helemets feel they also have a right to interfere in our daily lives regardless of whether or not we are active believers. Yep it fits!

 

[ufkacbln]

Homoeopathy is a bunch of charlatans pretending to do science and getting rich by it.

 

[Davidc]

Evidence denies faith, faith is a requirement of all religions.

Since the evidence is neutral to the helmet or not question either view, if strongly held, requires faith.

Religion is a coherent and all-encompassing attempt to explain those aspects of the world that science does not tackle - the meaning of life.

Homoeopathy is a bunch of charlatans pretending to do science and getting rich by it.

I don't recommend either as a way to understand physics.

Homeopathy - you are of course demonstrably right

Religion - the word attempt needs to be preceded by unsuccessful.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Since the evidence is neutral to the helmet or not question either view, if strongly held, requires faith.

.

The status quo is "or not" (unless you know of someone born wearing one) so no helmet doesn't need evidence, the intervention ( a helmet) is the action requiring proof to be shown of an advantage. As you point, out there is no evidence for.

 

[Davidc]

Not if your view is that compulsion is a very bad thing.

Compulsion is a separate matter from faith in the efficacy of helmets or faith in their being a bad idea, and on compulsion I totally agree. There is plenty of evidence from places such as Australia where it has happened that it's a disastrous idea.

Except, of course, when scientists manipulate or hide the evidence.

They get caught fairly quickly.

 

[ufkacbln]

Just to be picky.....

With Homoeopathy, isn't it the case that the less evidence there is the stronger the justification?

 

[Davidc]

Just to be picky.....

With Homoeopathy, isn't it the case that the less evidence there is the stronger the justification?

Especially if you sell the stuff!

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Really? Andrew Wakefield got away with it for years, got lots of high profile support and his actions had a significant impact on public health. He's just a quick example off the top of my head...

He wasn't a scientist , he was doctor . Doctors are technicians , not scientists.

 

[Licramite]

The status quo is "or not" (unless you know of someone born wearing one) so no helmet doesn't need evidence, the intervention ( a helmet) is the action requiring proof to be shown of an advantage. As you point, out there is no evidence for.

well thats not strictly true , theres lots of evidence for helmets , theirs is also lots of evidence refuting the evidence for and adding its own evidence against helmets making them dangerous. - it just comes down to which evidence you prefer to believe , (which falls into predisposition theory but lets not go there).

I personally think all the evidence is agenda driven and prefer to use my own judgment based on my own personnel experience. - I look at something and make my own mind up and don't give a bollocks what anyone else thinks.

 

[StuartG]

And his 'advice' to avoid MMR was refuted from the start by the scientific community. It was the acceptance of non-scientific reporting of his claim that killed kids.

The fact that our best minds on risk probabilities stay quiet on the efficacy of helmets says a lot ...

 

[Davidc]

Really? Andrew Wakefield got away with it for years, got lots of high profile support and his actions had a significant impact on public health. He's just a quick example off the top of my head...

Yes, although he lasted longer than most. The Korean who falsified stem cell results also lasted longer than most.

Back on subject, with helmets there's simply a shortage of research and a surfeit of anecdotes.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

well thats not strictly true , theres lots of evidence for helmets , theirs is also lots of evidence refuting the evidence for and adding its own evidence against helmets making them dangerous. - it just comes down to which evidence you prefer to believe , (which falls into predisposition theory but lets not go there).

I personally think all the evidence is agenda driven and prefer to use my own judgment based on my own personnel experience. - I look at something and make my own mind up and don't give a bollocks what anyone else thinks.

Lots of evidence? Are you sure? Have you actually examined it or just taken the 88% at face value?
It's not a case of taking" the evidence you prefer", you look at it, read it, examine the methodology, see if it's robust, check it against a model and see if the theory holds up.

Your admitance that you are happy to ignore all/any evidence and simply rely on your very limited experience makes you a ridiculous luddite, one who possibly beleives the light is always on in the fridge , based on your own personal experience.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

And his 'advice' to avoid MMR was refuted from the start by the scientific community. It was the acceptance of non-scientific reporting of his claim that killed kids.

The fact that our best minds on risk probabilities stay quiet on the efficacy of helmets says a lot ...

The fact that the best minds in advertising stay quiet on the efficacy of helmets says everthing. If the things worked Bell, Giro ect... would be climbing over each other to show how good theirs were compared to others, instead they sell on style, colour, weight, cooling, anything but how well they work.