Originally Posted by
cyrano138
The guy above me responded very well, so this isn't meant to take anything away from him.
The null result here, if the methods of research are solid, is not being used to prove that helmets don't work, but rather to falsify the suggestion that helmets save cyclists' lives
YOUR DATA DON'T DO THIS . THAT"S THE WHOLE POINT. It's a null result.
You are basing conclusions on null results. That is my point that is dumb in the scientific world. You can argue all you want, but you would need to show a significant difference some how some way, not an insignificant difference. Re-read the wiki page. I'm sorry I should have known better to try to help people understand science. Anyways, keep thinking that these data falsify anything. They don't, they won't, and they never can. You don't need to wear a helmet but don't invoke science as the reason, because this is simply not how you are supposed to interpret data. You would fail any intro stats class by making your conclusions. You say you falsified something, you haven't! Non-significant differences mean "Of no consequence." THIS IS A STATISTICAL FACT!