Originally Posted by
cyrano138
Okay, fair enough. I shot myself in the foot by using the word 'falsification'. I did not use the correct word. This is not a falsification, a proof by counterexample. It is not a proof (or disproof in this case) at all, but I've been saying this all along.
I stand by the rest of what I said. In this case, a positive correlation was hypothesized and none was observed. To say that the null result is useless because it doesn't disprove anything is crazy. Again, the Michelson-Morley experiment produced a null result, but it was hardly useless. It may not have proved that we're not surrounded by a medium through which light travels. But based on what people understood about disturbance of a medium, the original hypothesis needed to be reevaluated.
The experiment, if the method was sound, should have produced a positive correlation, but observed none, and so the hypothesis was less likely to be correct.
To borrow an example from the Simpsons--I sell you a rock that I say keeps bears from attacking you. You buy it and, sure enough, you are free from bear attacks. But then someone else comes along and says, "That rock doesn't work," and takes it away, and you still aren't attacked by any bears. Does this disprove the original hypothesis: that the rock was keeping bears at bay? No. It's possible hunting season started the day I took the rock away and most or all of the bears were killed. It's also possible that even though I took the rock away in March, most of the bears were still hibernating because of a late winter. But given the likelihood of either of these explanations or lack of it, it would be prudent at this point to suspend your slavish devotion to the original hypothesis until some corroborating evidence could be observed.
Again, the hypothesis here, that helmets save a significant number of cyclists' lives, isn't disproved by the null return, but given the fact that no corroborating evidence has been produced, and given the unlikely nature of alternative explanations of the data, it's time to reevaluate the original hypothesis: the idea that helmets are somehow a necessary part of bicycle safety equipment.
The way I understand science and null results (this is infact what I do on a daily basis, and I have infact published a few papers and I have in fact dealt with null results in my work). Nevermind how much of a di(k you were with the bear rock comment, come on I never said anything about correlation/coincidence/or causation at all. But any null result cannot be trusted because it can be caused by either A) the existence of no difference or B) poor methods. If a poor methodological concern is found, it should be addressed. The poor methods, including accidents that don't involve the head, has not been adequately addressed. The poor inflexibility of the con people is not seeing that we actually have agreed on much. 1 helmets don't protect when the accident doesn't involve the head 2. Most accidents don't involve the head and 3. when an accident involves the head a helmet would be helpful. The problem is that I personally think 2 is so obvious that it's not worth discussing and 3 is also so obvious that my heart is telling me this data will show large advantages in this specific situation. here's the kicker helmets are made for situation 3. But the con people are somehow against this...Anyways..
Now guess what it's time to quit hiding behind data, we've poked holes in it..massive holes. And it's time for you to make a decision. A real world decisions. If you're advocating no wearing a helmet, would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and be found liable for your spreading of this idea? That is, if someone takes your advice and gets in an accident and has Brain damage, can they sue you? A lot of people read these posts, some under the age of 15 (who are not legally considered capable for making their own decisions and whose frontal lobes are not fully formed and thus there's biological support for this argument).
Also, now lets think about you and your soul. You find out that someone died after reading your convincing arguments, how would you feel? Like you convinced someone to not wear a helmet, and they died because of your advice....is this something you're willing to live with. This is where science and reality don't always merge.
A null result that may suggest that helmets don't do anything or may suggest that poor methods were used (poor data sampling in this case); is this strong enough for you to persuade people to not wear helmets? Is there not enough doubt in the null finding that you don't question the thing you are advocating. If you believe in it fully, then state your real name, your real address, your real phone number.
As for the null result thing, I'm a popperian, so a null result is not acceptable. Set your null to helmets protect against brain damage, and disprove this! That's the theory behind helmets. These data do not falsify this null. Which is the important null. Scientists don't interpret null results because they are liable for the conclusions that are drawn (i.e. they are viewed as a schmuck when bad things happen as a result of their poor research). The case in point is the ****** bad that said lead was safe and doesn't harm children...He based his findings on null results, just like you are..
As for the people not biking because of it, again, what is your value of a life? I mean one person dies that is an invaluable loss (according to philosophers like Kant anyways). But it's a tangent. The first data don't suggest helmets don't work. The second data suggest that there is a down side to helmets, but no one said helmets were angles. It's like this. Sex without a condom sucks, but Aids is worse. There are down sides to everything, but does this minor downside mean that we shouldn't promote bike safety? No!