Peter Clinch said:Buck said:I think you have completely missed my main point, in that I make my own
decissions based on my own criteria to take my own responsibility, I
have no interest in getting published in medical journals.
So your "choosing not to accept bias" is, really, just choosing your own
bias (and don't pretend you don't have any, everyone does, it's a
natural part of the human condition).
I have never pretended I don't have any, where have I said that my
opinion is based on objective
view, my whole premise is subjective.
Quoted message said:Whether or not you have any interest in getting published is less
important than are your particular criteria good enough for anyone
except you. If they're not, and in particular not good enough for the
general and wider science community, then that actually might tell you
something about how good your criteria are in a wider and more objective
sense.
Er see above and try re reading my posts.
Quoted message said:
Taking responsibility for your own opinions is fine, but don't go about
characterising people who happen to agree with other things as people
that don't take responsibility for theirs.
Where did I say that? Oh yes nowhere, that is one you are making up.
Quoted message said:I make *my* own decisions
based on *my* own criteria, and those lead me to *my* conclusions which
*I* take responsibility for. If I share them with other people who've
gone through the same process that doesn't make me a bandwagon jumper,
any more than a kid counting out 2+2 on the fingers and getting 4 is
"just jumping on the well known 2+2=4 bandwagon".
You are really upset about this "bandwagon" bit aren't you? Reread what
I said, did I say
you always jump on the bandwagon?
I tell you what I did allude to, people regurgitating the same point
over and over which you seem
to be doing on this one transient point.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:I will continue to do so until such times as cohesive research is
actually carried out, until then both sides can use emotive issues or
say things like "your assesment is rubbish until you go and do the
same without a helmet to prove you will die/crack your skull/be
crippled, yada yada".
So who actually, really says anything like your quote there? I recapped
the basic arguments for you a few posts ago and there was nothing like
that there, and I don't recall seeing anything like that on
cyclehelmets.org, so you appear to have taken a bit of usenet based
shooting down of spurious logic as the main thrust of an argument,
which it isn't. Once again, therefore, your reasoning is flawed,
because you're using a false impression of the arguments to colour your
opinion of them.
Furthermore, you're are evidently subject to emotive reasoning yourself.
Your friend who fell over walking and fractured his skull is used as an
argument for wearing a helmet on a bike, but not walking; you put a few
anecdotes above mass statistical evidence; whether you like it or
not that's emotive based thinking.
Yes it is and I do not try to hide it.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:And I still tend on the side of the OP.
And I point out the simple fact that the reasoning you used won't stand
up in the general arena of science.
I don't expect it to.
Quoted message said:So ask yourself is that because
science is wrong in how it goes about its business, or perhaps your
reasoning has a large dose of justification of gut feeling (I recognise
justification of gut feeling, I've often run along on it myself).
That's exactly what it is.
Quoted message said:
Independence is not /necessarily/ a virtue, and one reason why is it
removes the checks and balances of peer review. Those are used in wider
science for a very good reason.
Unfortunately the science just isn't there on this subject.
You seem to be desperately crusading to prove how stupid I am but not
getting anywhere
and making claims about my posts that do not exist, it is a wild ride
Peter, you just carry on
don't let the facts blind you.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok
www.catrike.co.uk
