The scientific method and its limitations

[Vincent Kars]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

 

[Cosmik]

On the one hand I like the idea that it is possible to make a rational argument without having to pollute it with interminable empirical studies. I presume they would like to be able to argue for emergency mass vaccinations on this basis, for example.

On the other, I fear that the 'paper' is making the case for, say, dismissing any challenges to legislation to mandate the use of fluoride in water, or cycle helmets for everyone at all times, simply on the basis that it is 'common sense'.

 

[Analog Scott]

I hope that they are just trying to be funny and nothing more.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I hope that they are just trying to be funny and nothing more.

Do ya think?

Hilarious!

 

[Cosmik]

Do ya think?

Hilarious!

No, I think this 'paper' is born from some deep frustration on their part - they aren't just having a laugh by taking the p*ss out of the jargon of their own profession. Clicking on the links, they are serious people, and one of them works a lot in smoking-related health.

This paragraph seems a little bitter:

It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use parachutes is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency. The widespread use of the parachute may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events.

It could have been written with this topic (and many others) in mind, for example:

Should bike helmets be compulsory? Lessons from Seattle and Amsterdam
Seattle is one of the few big cities in the world where cyclists of all ages are legally required to wear a helmet. “There’s an interesting conversation going on about this, because it could dissuade people from cycling,” says Kiker. “And yet, it is safer if you fall. I once slipped with my bike and fell on my helmet and I was glad I was wearing it.”...
...Five thousand miles to the east, Marco te Brömmelstroet cycles to his job as director of the Urban Cycling Institute of the University of Amsterdam. The wind is blowing freely through his hair. “Cycling without a helmet is something I take for granted, I never give it any thought,” he says. “But it does amplify the feeling of ultimate freedom.”...
...“Helmets are very effective in preventing head injuries and there are many studies to prove it,” maintains Randy Swart of the American Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. “These are medical studies, some of them based on emergency room data, some of them based on crash data from accident scenes....
...Te Brömmelstroet does not agree. “The problem is precisely that there are not so many studies and that most of the existing studies are methodologically not very sound,” he says. ... Etc.

Clearly there are people who would love to make cycle helmets compulsory, and they will cite scientific evidence to 'prove' it. They are a certain sort of person. There are other people who resent having their freedom gradually drip-dripped away. They will oppose the proposed legislation by challenging the science, or appealing directly on the grounds that maintaining the freedom to cycle without a helmet (or smoke, or drink, or eat cream cakes) is "life affirming". I think the authors of the parachute 'paper' are the former category of people, and are frustrated in their ambitions by the second category...

 

[Analog Scott]

"It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use parachutes is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency. The widespread use of the parachute may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events."

When I read this it just screams parody to me.

 

[Analog Scott]

Clearly there are people who would love to make cycle helmets compulsory, and they will cite scientific evidence to 'prove' it. They are a certain sort of person. There are other people who resent having their freedom gradually drip-dripped away. They will oppose the proposed legislation by challenging the science, or appealing directly on the grounds that maintaining the freedom to cycle without a helmet (or smoke, or drink, or eat cream cakes) is "life affirming". I think the authors of the parachute 'paper' are the former category of people, and are frustrated in their ambitions by the second category...

As long as they don't make parachutes compulsory for sky diving.....

 

[sergeauckland]

"It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use parachutes is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency. The widespread use of the parachute may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events."

When I read this it just screams parody to me.

I assumed the whole article was a piss-take. A very funny one too.
But then I like deadpan humour when it's not completely obvious if it's supposed to be funny or not.
S.

 

[oivavoi]

No, I think this 'paper' is born from some deep frustration on their part - they aren't just having a laugh by taking the p*ss out of the jargon of their own profession. Clicking on the links, they are serious people, and one of them works a lot in smoking-related health.

This paragraph seems a little bitter:

It could have been written with this topic (and many others) in mind, for example:

Clearly there are people who would love to make cycle helmets compulsory, and they will cite scientific evidence to 'prove' it. They are a certain sort of person. There are other people who resent having their freedom gradually drip-dripped away. They will oppose the proposed legislation by challenging the science, or appealing directly on the grounds that maintaining the freedom to cycle without a helmet (or smoke, or drink, or eat cream cakes) is "life affirming". I think the authors of the parachute 'paper' are the former category of people, and are frustrated in their ambitions by the second category...

Indeed, the whole helmet thing is a bit empirically complicated. The main anti-helmet argument is that bicyclists get a false sense of security with helmets, and take more chances, and also that car drivers seem to care less about the safety of bicyclists who wear helmets. Both of these tendencies have been empirically observed, I think. The question then becomes whether a policy which is apriori sound and rational should be discarded because of human stupidity? Shouldn't we rather teach people that one needs to be careful even with a helmet? Both sides may have have a valid point.

 

[Analog Scott]

Speaking of helmets. I think there are some estimates that mandatory helmets for all riders in cars would reduce road fatalities by more than half. That's a lot of people. Of course it will never happen.

 

[Cosmik]

Speaking of helmets. I think there are some estimates that mandatory helmets for all riders in cars would reduce road fatalities by more than half. That's a lot of people. Of course it will never happen.

And pedestrians. A very high proportion of pedestrian deaths and injuries are due to head trauma...

 

[RayDunzl]

 

[Analog Scott]

Has there been any studies in regards to drivers, passengers and even pedestrians in so far as them wearing parachutes to prevent trauma in car accidents?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Indeed, the whole helmet thing is a bit empirically complicated. The main anti-helmet argument is that bicyclists get a false sense of security with helmets, and take more chances, and also that car drivers seem to care less about the safety of bicyclists who wear helmets. Both of these tendencies have been empirically observed, I think. The question then becomes whether a policy which is apriori sound and rational should be discarded because of human stupidity? Shouldn't we rather teach people that one needs to be careful even with a helmet? Both sides may have have a valid point.

I don't think this take is entirely accurate. What has been shown multiple times is helmet laws result in fewer cyclists. Fewer cyclists result in greater rates of accidents. More cyclists results in lower rates of accidents.

Further cycle helmets aren't that robust. They mainly are to prevent head injuries from falling off the bike to the ground at speeds up to about 15 mph. Yet the overwhelming majority of serious biking injuries involve collisions with cars. A helmet just fine for hitting the ground from a few feet may well make pretty close to zero difference when impact with a car at 25 mph occurs (more or less the average impact speed in such accidents). Helmet use does appear to reduce brain trauma. But whether that reduction vs reduced ridership and higher rates works out to a positive benefit to bikers as a whole is not exactly clear.

Now about cars being less careful around helmeted cyclists, there are hints of it though not very strong ones and it may not be so.

Then there are health and longevity issues. It appears for no helmets, assume higher accident and injury, figure in health and longer life benefits of cycling to the whole community, and maybe helmet laws are still a negative.

This issue is one of the stickier to unravel and get answers about regardless of which side you come down on.

Oh and yes, you would reduce injuries to far more people if everyone were required to wear such helmets whenever they use stairs, walk on public sidewalks or basically whenever they are standing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Has there been any studies in regards to drivers, passengers and even pedestrians in so far as them wearing parachutes to prevent trauma in car accidents?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Maybe if bikers could put out flames like this it would cause drivers to 1st TAKE Notice, and 2nd Give a Wide Berth.

 

[RayDunzl]

The main anti-helmet argument is that bicyclists get a false sense of security with helmets, and take more chances

I took a ride in a DC-3 one day long ago in Zephyrhills.

Everyone in the aircraft wearing parachutes (not me) exhibited an interesting sense of security about exiting the aircraft at 12,500 feet.

Some wore helmets, some not. Helmet-wearing didn't seem to be a factor in this case.

There were about 30 of them, if that makes a difference for statistical inferences.

 

[Dismayed]

Sure, ride without a helmet if you like - as long as you are fine with forfeiting your insurance coverage in the event of an accident .

 

[oivavoi]

FWIW, a similar thing applies to boxing and martial arts, which I've been doing recreationally (perhaps a contradiction in terms) on and off for the last 10 years. Boxing with a helmet and padded gloves is often regarded as a more civilized sport than MMA, with all the blood from the face and whatnot. But it turns out there are less serious injuries in MMA. The reason is that people can sustain more blows to the head in the short term with a helmet and boxing gloves, but this wreaks havoc on the brain long term. MMA, on the other hand, has less blows to the head, and people tap out immediately when there's danger. So MMA might actually be a more "civilized" sport than boxing.

 

[oivavoi]

I don't think this take is entirely accurate. What has been shown multiple times is helmet laws result in fewer cyclists. Fewer cyclists result in greater rates of accidents. More cyclists results in lower rates of accidents.

Further cycle helmets aren't that robust. They mainly are to prevent head injuries from falling off the bike to the ground at speeds up to about 15 mph. Yet the overwhelming majority of serious biking injuries involve collisions with cars. A helmet just fine for hitting the ground from a few feet may well make pretty close to zero difference when impact with a car at 25 mph occurs (more or less the average impact speed in such accidents). Helmet use does appear to reduce brain trauma. But whether that reduction vs reduced ridership and higher rates works out to a positive benefit to bikers as a whole is not exactly clear.

Now about cars being less careful around helmeted cyclists, there are hints of it though not very strong ones and it may not be so.

Then there are health and longevity issues. It appears for no helmets, assume higher accident and injury, figure in health and longer life benefits of cycling to the whole community, and maybe helmet laws are still a negative.

This issue is one of the stickier to unravel and get answers about regardless of which side you come down on.

Oh and yes, you would reduce injuries to far more people if everyone were required to wear such helmets whenever they use stairs, walk on public sidewalks or basically whenever they are standing.

Thanks! Seems to me like you're right.