or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Re: I crash into religion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re: I crash into religion - Page 16

post #226 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Tony Raven wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > jtaylor wrote:
> >> Why do you think this leads to a better decision?

> >
> > Multiple presumptions in that question..
> >
> > For those who believe, no explaination is necessary. For those who do
> > not believe, no explaination is possible.
> >

>
> How do you classify those of us who used to believe until we reviewed
> the evidence and currently do not believe but remain open to new evidence?


You didn't believe, you just went with conforming to common sense and
the trend of the time (as did I, even ahead of the trend with my trusty
Bell V1 Pro in London in the late 80's)

...d
post #227 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

jtaylor wrote:
> "David Martin" <martin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1148375804.927533.122010@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jtaylor wrote:
> > > Why do you think this leads to a better decision?

> >
> > Multiple presumptions in that question..
> >
> > For those who believe, no explaination is necessary. For those who do
> > not believe, no explaination is possible.
> >

>
> Are you saying that Sorni's decision-making system is faith-based?


Name me one that isn't.

IMO it is not practically relevant whether you have faith or why, but
what it is you have faith in.

...d
post #228 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Tony Raven wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>>> Why do you think this leads to a better decision?

>>
>> Multiple presumptions in that question..
>>
>> For those who believe, no explaination is necessary. For those who do
>> not believe, no explaination is possible.
>>

> How do you classify those of us who used to believe until we reviewed
> the evidence and currently do not believe but remain open to new evidence?


Heretics and apostates who have strayed from the one true (singletrack?)
path of righteousness!

Or as Peter put it, AHZs.
--
Chris

I'm going to live forever, or die trying!
-- Spider Robinson
post #229 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Chris Slade wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>> For those who believe, no explaination is necessary. For those who do
>>> not believe, no explaination is possible.
>>>

>> How do you classify those of us who used to believe until we reviewed
>> the evidence and currently do not believe but remain open to new evidence?

>
> Heretics and apostates who have strayed from the one true (singletrack?)
> path of righteousness!
>
> Or as Peter put it, AHZs.


Now I know the definition of an AHZ I am proud to be called one!

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
post #230 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

In article <iM*Zgxhr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <rickk@letterectomyTELUS.net>:
> >As I've said in other posts, feel free to make your own decisions about
> >which gross population level statistics to apply to your particular
> >situation, and which not. I'm not trying to make a case for everyone
> >disregarding all statistics -- I'm trying to make a case for making good
> >decisions in the absence of statistics that bear directly on the
> >question at hand.

>
> Now, how might we know if that decision is good?


Without additional data, we won't, as with you and wine drinking, and as
with those athletes whose so-called "risky" BMIs were, by the best
population data available, put them at higher risk of cardiovascular
disease. Of course, that was before further studies showed that fit,
muscular men with high BMIs were NOT at increased risk despite the
overall population findings. But you would have them . . . do what? .
.. . stop exercising until their BMIs were in line with the best
available whole population evidence?
>
> If the population statistics show zero net effect for helmets, but your
> deduction is that nevertheless you are in a group that gets a positive
> effect, there are three questions to answer.
>
> 1) What's the group that gets a negative effect?


You've already addressed that.

---------------
"Well, quite. I don't want to talk about off-roaders, really; I don't
think many of the large-scale studies pertain to off-road riding, I
don't think it can tell us much about on-road riding, and while I'd
oppose compulsion for off-roaders I think the benefits of foam hats
there may well be positive."
---------------

If off-roaders aren't included in the population stats, why does there
have to be a group that "gets a negative effect"?
>
> 2) Given the idea we have of the effects that cause helmets to have a net
> zero effect - rotational versus direct impacts, etc - do those seem like
> the sort of thing that one type of riding might be particularly prone to?


I don't know, but I agree with your assessment above -- "for off-roaders
I think the benefits of foam hats there may well be positive".

>
> 3) Given that everyone who makes this deduction imagines they are in a
> group that gets a positive effect, they can't all be right. What's special
> about you?
>

What's special about me? Nothing, but I do try to keep up.

Rick
post #231 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

In article <Mnj*tixhr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <rickk@letterectomyTELUS.net>:
> >damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> >>Feel free to counter this. Come up with some hypothetical population and
> >>risk where there is a better individual strategy than assuming the
> >>population mean.

> >I think you've already done it for me:
> >"while I'd oppose compulsion for off-roaders I think the benefits of
> >foam hats there may well be positive"

>
> You're evading the point again. First of all, "may well be" does not mean
> "are"; secondly, that hypothetical excercise is where there is no
> information about risk distribution. When I talk about off-roaders I am
> speculating about risk distribution. What do these have to do with each
> other?
>

The majority of my riding is off-road. You already agreed that the
population stats probably don't apply:
----------------------------------
frkrygow@gmail.com>:
"If your biking is mostly low-speed mountain biking, I think it really
is another kettle of fish."

You:
"Well, quite. I don't want to talk about off-roaders, really; I don't
think many of the large-scale studies pertain to off-road riding, I
don't think it can tell us much about on-road riding."
-----------------------------------


And you speculated:
------------------------------------
" . . while I'd oppose compulsion
for off-roaders I think the benefits of foam hats there may well be
positive."
------------------------------------

I agree that the benefits of helmets off-road may well be positive, and
in the absence of data pertaining to off-road riding, I choose to ride
helmeted.

Rick
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Re: I crash into religion