S
Steven Bornfeld
Guest
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Well, Pruitt's experience may have the better part of this academic
> duel, but it bothers me that on one hand we have a pretty theoretical
> experiment based on fiddling with dead legs, and on the other hand what
> appears to be, more or less, Pruitt's anecdotal, uncontrolled
> "experiment" consisting of 30 years of fiddling with live legs.
>
> Not that I don't respect Pruitt's experience; if I had to trust only one
> of these results, I'd probably trust his. But people are fallible, and
> our personal experiences can lead us badly wrong in numerous
> well-documented ways. There's a reason why double-blind experiments are
> considered the right way to test hypotheses, and it's because very
> smart, experienced experts find myriad ways to unintentionally fool
> themselves all the time.
>
> The death of King Charles II:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeA_OKqqBJ4
You're right, of course. Also, I assume that Pruitt has some financial
connection to some of the pedal manufacturers.
Still, collecting clinical information of this type can be useful if
properly interpreted. I'm not sure how you'd do a double-blind study on
a variable so obvious to the subjects.
Steve
>
> The lesson there isn't that King Charles II's physicians were dumbasses,
> it is that personal experience and non-EB "best practices" in any field
> can mislead you.
>
>
> Well, Pruitt's experience may have the better part of this academic
> duel, but it bothers me that on one hand we have a pretty theoretical
> experiment based on fiddling with dead legs, and on the other hand what
> appears to be, more or less, Pruitt's anecdotal, uncontrolled
> "experiment" consisting of 30 years of fiddling with live legs.
>
> Not that I don't respect Pruitt's experience; if I had to trust only one
> of these results, I'd probably trust his. But people are fallible, and
> our personal experiences can lead us badly wrong in numerous
> well-documented ways. There's a reason why double-blind experiments are
> considered the right way to test hypotheses, and it's because very
> smart, experienced experts find myriad ways to unintentionally fool
> themselves all the time.
>
> The death of King Charles II:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeA_OKqqBJ4
You're right, of course. Also, I assume that Pruitt has some financial
connection to some of the pedal manufacturers.
Still, collecting clinical information of this type can be useful if
properly interpreted. I'm not sure how you'd do a double-blind study on
a variable so obvious to the subjects.
Steve
>
> The lesson there isn't that King Charles II's physicians were dumbasses,
> it is that personal experience and non-EB "best practices" in any field
> can mislead you.
>