Originally Posted by
grolby
First, you assume that the bold claim is with those disputing the claims of helmet advocates.
There are three positions: 1) helmets are safer, 2) no helmets are safer, 3) helmets don't do anything.
It's not clear that 2 and 3 are
less bold.
Originally Posted by
grolby
Why? Because it's just obvious that helmets are safer.
Below, you seem to imply that the "status quo" position is the
less bold one. If it's "obvious" that helmets are safer, then
that should be the status quo.
Originally Posted by
grolby
So you're assuming a priori that the claims are true.
You are making the
SAME kinds of assumptions!
Originally Posted by
grolby
But, um, no. That's not how it works.
How come it works for your side??
Originally Posted by
grolby
Second, you represent the helmet skeptic argument as "no helmets are safer because magic will help you," an atrocious straw person.
This was more of a poke at the odd "helmets keep you from rolling" arguments (
you did not make this argument).
Originally Posted by
grolby
Sorry, the actual argument is that the claims for safety benefits are not true, in the absence of sufficient evidence (when grown-ups argue about helmets, the sticking point is what constitutes sufficient evidence).
I suspect that among
knowlegable adults (one who deal with head injuries) there is more than sufficient evidence.
Originally Posted by
grolby
In point of fact, our a priori knowledge about the benefits of helmets is exactly nothing - we don't know that they do anything, and it is incorrect in the absence of evidence to assume that they do. THIS, then, is our starting point.
It is not "exactly" nothing. It's not clear that there is
no evidence (it's not "exactly nothing"). One might even be able to extrapolate from other areas with similar crash parameters, such as roller blading, skiing, football.
Originally Posted by
grolby
The status quo, as it were, is life without helmets. The bold, specific claim, then (it has to be specific), is that helmets will reduce the risk of head injury if we wear them while bicycling.
More false logic. The "status quo" case does not preclude that position from being bold. For example, not that long ago, the "status quo" was that smoking safe. Lots of status quo "understanding" has been proven incorrect.
Originally Posted by
grolby
but it is sufficiently bold as to require some evidence.
There is at least "some" evidence.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm
Originally Posted by
grolby
Once it has been agreed that the evidence is sufficient, we can declare that helmets reduce the risk of head injury and be confident that wearing a helmet will improve personal safety, not before. The thing is that there is no consensus yet on whether the existing evidence is sufficient.
Well, no, "we" don't have to do it that way. One reason not to do it that way is that there will
never be sufficient evidence for the "skeptics". They will keep presenting ad-hoc crashes with parameters beyond what helmets can deal with as "proof" they don't work.
Anyway, the "consensus" already exists! among people who study and deal with head injuries!
Originally Posted by
grolby
Next time, before you try and correct me on burden of proof, I suggest a debate club.
Next time , make some sense.