Embarrassment

[Pat]

Bird, Let's not confuse GOOD science with popular or accepted view of any group. Good science is based on the scientific method and a great deal of active skepticism. Just because the opinion du jour is expressed by a guy wearing a white lab coat doesn't make it good science any more than a minority collection of anecdotal findings that are contrary to scientifically gathered data disprove the "science" of that data.

Flat earth was never good science, just the accepted popular view.

Galileo Galilei championed Copernicanism, a controversial view within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle. It was THE ACCEPTED view. Galileo would have been put to death as a heretic by the Pope had he not been persuaded by his friends to recant. I read that he was heard to mutter under his breath as he left the papal audience, "it moves." Galileo was a scientist.

The presentation of and understanding of statistics is one of the points of difficulty that tends to obscure a common understanding of the underlying causal relationships for most of the population.

When you microwave a bag of popcorn you expect a certain percentage of kernels to not pop based on your observation over several trials. Those kernels that don't pop are not justification for claiming the bag did not contain popcorn. Similarly, there are many investigations, especially in medical science, where there are a significant number of "odd flyers." The overwhelming evidence may show that for the vast majority a certain set of situations greatly increases the chances of some outcome(s) but still there will be those whose actual experience is contrary to the majority.

Most critics of "smoking is hazordous to your health" use this small minority to try to prove the general case. That in itself is really bad science. Statistically, walking across the street without looking in either direction is not prudent behavior but because it is not Consumer Reports check rated lethal first time every time and you did it unharmed, is it therefore not dangerous?

Pat

[Bird]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Good science is based on the scientific method and a great deal of active skepticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, who decides what a "scientific method" is vs. someone else's observations and/or "scientific methods"? And yep, I have a great deal of active skepticism about some of the things medical researchers tell us. And by "medical researchers", I include those working for pharmaceutical companies.

But lest anyone get the wrong idea, I never meant that I believe smoking is actually good for your health. I know how dirty it got everything, including yellowing the walls in the house as well as ash trays, so I'm confident that it cannot be "good" for your innards. And I'm glad my daughters, their husbands, and their kids don't smoke. But I just don't think it's as bad as the medical profession would lead us to believe.

I am very skeptical of a great deal of "research" that's theoretically done scientifically in order to obtain the results that the researcher wanted to obtain before starting (and I don't mean just in the medical field, but "research" in many fields).

And Pat, I know that you're both a very intelligent and a highly educated person (much more so than I), so I have a very high regard for your opinions. But you may have more confidence in some researchers than I have. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[Pat]

Bird, here is an excerpt from some humorous political material I received...

I'm voting Democrat because I
believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on
Friday can surely tell us that the polar ice caps
will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

Just one of the many statements in a litany of reasons to vote Dem.

(Oh by the way, I am neither supporting nor detracting from Democrats nor proponents of global warming, at least in this forum.)

Here is the fallacy of the implied but flawed logic.

There is little or no connection between the science involved in predicting Friday's weather and long term climatology. The time scales are so totally different as to stagger the imagination.

It is just a very poor example that shows the author to be ignorant, willing to ignore reality in order to support a point, or both.

I attended a seminar a while back where one of the speakers was a weather expert. Although Oklahoma was having the wettest spring in recorded history, his contention was that we were about in the middle of the dry cycle and the rain was a fluke, an odd flyer. (Oklahoma has a wet-dry cycle of about 10 year period) He contends that you can have wet years in a drought cycle and dry years in the wet part of the cycle. His was a good presentation, his evidence substantial, and convincing to me. But, however, "The Old Farmer's Almanac" did not agree so clearly to many of the attendees the guy was just some young whipper snapper promoting hogwash.

Pat

[jml755]

Bird,
"And yep, I have a great deal of active skepticism about some of the things medical researchers tell us. And by "medical researchers", I include those working for pharmaceutical companies."

And well you should. My wife is a University Researcher who sometimes conducts studies for drug companies. Interesting what happens when the research doesn't back up the claims. [img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img]

My 2 cents on smoking: Years ago, there was no data to indicate smoking caused harm. Now that we know it IS harmful, the risk-reward calculation for a sensible person should tip in favor of NOT smoking.

Kind of like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. Do a risk-reward calculation. Result should be in favor of wearing one, but if you want to go out and ride without one, go for it. However, if you get in an accident and are paralyzed or killed because you DIDN'T have one on, then you alone should pay the price for it (increased insurance, etc).

Everyday we do a lot of things that are dangerous. Can't go live in a bubble. But as Pat says, I don't walk across a street without looking. Too much risk, too little reward.

[JazzDad]

Re: "Kind of like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle."
When I sell motorcycle insurance I ask if they routinely wear a helmet. To those who reply 'no', I say "Thank you! If you run into the side of my car, then your head will pop like an over-ripe tomato, and cause little damage to me. But, if you were wearing a helmet, then that might do some serious damage to my car, so again, thanks!" I don't know if it causes them to think...
[img]/forums/images/icons/ooo.gif[/img]

[jml755]

JazzDad,
Probably not. Although, I've been skiing for many years (40+)and my kids have been skiing since they were 4 (now 18-26), all without helmets. They didn't come into vogue for recreational skiers until relatively recently. By that time, my kids were all excellent skiers and we still ski without them. Some would say we're crazy, but I am sure we are more cautious on the slopes than most people. I think that some of the kids I see get a false sense of security from wearing them, judging by the speed with which they zip through the trees. Hitting a tree on skis can be pretty unforgiving. Kind of like hitting the side of your car. [img]/forums/images/icons/ooo.gif[/img] By the way, I did try wearing one once but found that it limited my audible sense of the surroundings and I rely upon that a lot to be a safe skier.

Anyway, does the answer "No" to your question raise the rates for those honest enough to answer truthfully?

[Bird]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
found that it limited my audible sense of the surroundings and I rely upon that a lot to be a safe skier.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you know that the limited hearing and the heat are the most frequent reasons given by motorcycle riders for not wearing a helmet. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] I did wear my motorcycle helmet nearly all the time, but not quite all the time. And of course I grew up in the days before anyone ever heard of those silly looking little helmets the bicycle riders wear. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] But if it makes them safer, then I reckon they're a good idea. [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[JazzDad]

Technically, yes- your insurance rate is higher if you don't wear a helmet. In Texas you have to carry a line of insurance for YOUR injuries. I guess we don't want the system to pay for those folks who prefer to keep their noggin au naturel.

And that's no fabrication. (How about this for bringing the topic back onto the subject?)

We usually wear our helmets when we bicycle, although it wasn't even an option when we were growing up.

I have heard of trauma doctors who advocate wearing a helmet whenever you are in an automobile.
__________________________________

[Bird]

There's no doubt that a helmet would give added protection in the event of an accident in an automobile. It's just a matter of deciding how much risk we're willing to take, and how much insurance against risk we can afford.

It would have been nice to have had a helmet the evening of December 29, 1965, when my partner hit a tree head on, my seat belt broke, and I stuck my head through the windshield. As it was, just the uniform cap may have saved my life, and at least saved my eyes.

[egon]

I always used to wear a climbing helmet when Skiing. It was good for stopping wind and keeping the head warm if one wore a light toque underneath. And it kept your head dry after face plants. I did have to drill a small hole in the top to release sweat vapours though. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Egon [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]