|
06-17-2004, 08:47 AM
|
#21 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
> scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.
What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
effort, for once!
> In
> general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
> promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
> statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more
> skeptical of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.
Ah, but there's no money to be made in telling people they don't need helmets!
And no political points gained from being "anti-safety."
Matt O. | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:01 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
>>scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.
>
>
> What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
> names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
> Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
> effort, for once!
Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.
When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.
A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.
The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu] | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:01 AM
|
#23 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
>>scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.
>
>
> What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
> names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
> Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
> effort, for once!
Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.
When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.
A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.
The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu] | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:01 AM
|
#24 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
>>scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.
>
>
> What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
> names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
> Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
> effort, for once!
Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.
When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.
A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.
The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu] | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:01 AM
|
#25 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
>>scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.
>
>
> What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
> names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
> Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
> effort, for once!
Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.
When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.
A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.
The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu] | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:01 AM
|
#26 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
>>scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.
>
>
> What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
> names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
> Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
> effort, for once!
Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.
When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.
A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.
The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu] | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:22 AM
|
#27 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski wrote:
> The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
> wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
> no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
> butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-) It all
> tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
Uh oh. I'm afraid you may have just woken up the Anti-Science Beast. Or
perhaps I should say "drawn the attention of" -- the Beast never sleeps.
--
Benjamin Lewis
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
-- Ambrose Bierce | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:22 AM
|
#28 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski wrote:
> The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
> wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
> no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
> butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-) It all
> tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
Uh oh. I'm afraid you may have just woken up the Anti-Science Beast. Or
perhaps I should say "drawn the attention of" -- the Beast never sleeps.
--
Benjamin Lewis
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
-- Ambrose Bierce | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:22 AM
|
#29 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski wrote:
> The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
> wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
> no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
> butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-) It all
> tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
Uh oh. I'm afraid you may have just woken up the Anti-Science Beast. Or
perhaps I should say "drawn the attention of" -- the Beast never sleeps.
--
Benjamin Lewis
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
-- Ambrose Bierce | |
| |
06-17-2004, 10:22 AM
|
#30 (permalink)
| | | Re: published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski wrote:
> The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
> wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
> no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
> butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-) It all
> tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.
Uh oh. I'm afraid you may have just woken up the Anti-Science Beast. Or
perhaps I should say "drawn the attention of" -- the Beast never sleeps.
--
Benjamin Lewis
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
-- Ambrose Bierce | |
| |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
Style Design by vBStyles.com |