Originally Posted by
jgmacg
Since trombone seems lost in a statistical thicket of contradictory data and inconclusive evidence in which it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that helmets are a benefit to everyone at all times, I'll simply refer him to Pascal's Wager.
Simplified, Pascal finds it rational to believe in God and salvation - even without evidence - rather than not believe, because it costs him nothing to do so, he risks little, and he may ensure his eternal rest in a blissful heaven. If it turns out there is no God and there is no heaven, Pascal has wasted nothing.
In the search for salvation, belief in God is simply a safer bet than disbelief.
For "God", now substitute "wearing a helmet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Yep, you can do that, and Pascal's Wager fails for exactly the same reason as in the god hypothesis. Surely we're a bit beyond this by now, aren't we?
If you really need the whole nine yards on this, I can explain it for you, but I'm guessing you actually know the answer already.
Still, you bring up a good point in that there is contradictory evidence out there. This is not a simple issue (Have I made that point yet?) and can't be dismissed as such just because some people would
like it to be simple.