Brian Ratliff

surgeon: you remind me of one of my college friends. He was an enthusiastic evangelical Christian when I was roommates with him in my freshman year. Then, one day when I was a senior, we were on a bike ride and he admitted he was now an enthusiastic atheist. He was attracted to evangelicalism the same way he was attracted to atheism. He heard a convincing argument from someone and thought it a bright glowing bit of logic and ran with it.

Now, the following is not to start an argument or even a discussion, but is merely an exercise in harmless pitch and toss:

1) Most of the arguments given about the lack of efficacy of helmets apply equally to the whole population. If the goose, why not the gander?

2) Anecdotes rule internet debates. The "science" is cherry picked by one extreme or the other. Which science is cherry picked usually defines the extremes of the debate. An "open mind" arrives at a theory that attempts to cover all evidence present. It's the partisan that groups the science into piles of pro and con and chooses which pile to accept. It's the difference between solving a problem and supporting a position; the difference between science and ideology.

3) Helmets aren't made to save lives. This is a secondary effect. They are made to mitigate the effects of head impacts with the ground.

4) This is the perfectionist fallacy. You can't have it all, so why bother with part-way? Basic physics suggest the helmet mitigates damage from head impacts with the ground. You don't need population studies to solve a physics problem.

5 & 6) Not showing an effect is very different than showing the effect is not present. Just as correlation does not automatically suggest causation, non-correlation does not automatically suggest non-causation. The danger of population studies is there are a myriad of variables, none of which can be controlled, leaving it to the imagination and creativity of the study author to recognize the variables and take them into account when analyzing the data. Sussing out the exact effect of a single variable from the melee is difficult and usually requires some separate, supporting studies.

Again, just an exercise, don't get your hackles up. I'm sure the A&S thread has all these counterpoints counterpointed. The course I am really suggesting here is to take internet threads with a grain of salt, read all the applicable, first hand, information on your own, take into account that common sense is usually common for a reason and if you are suggesting common sense be wrong, you'd better be pretty grounded on why, and come to your own, independent point of view on the subject. If you find yourself responding to arguments by repeating the arguments of others, or appealing to the authority of "studies" instead of responding to points directly, you should probably examine your own point of view to ensure it is fully informed.

As for myself, notice I choose a helmet based on the probability of whether my head is going to hit the ground or not, balancing that probability with convenience. Has nothing to do with "believing in" the efficacy of helmets or not.