Science at its best


Recommended Posts

petrossa

BMI and Risk of Serious Upper Body Injury Following Motor Vehicle Crashes:

Conclusions

Obese men endured a much higher risk of injury to upper body regions during MVCs. This higher risk may be attributed to differences in body shape, fat distribution, and center of gravity between obese and normal-weight subjects, and between men and women.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000250

In normal language: greater masses have greater momentum. Wow. Worth a scientific study anyday to confirm centuries old laws of physics. Good money well spent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lamminium

Selective reading again?

One of the key benefits of this study is a warning of the increasing obesity pandemic and the need for car manufacturers to adjust the design.

Read the Editor's summary and the study carefully. As long as it proposes something that hasn't been tested (detailed in the Introduction), it's classified as a new study. The result can be obvious - well, obvious after the result came out, obviously... It's like saying "oh that penhouse will collapse because the support looks terribly weak" but until you get the data and do a proper analysis, the outcome could be either way. When the analysis is completed, the result could be as expected but that is considered a worthy study because it verifies the outcome by using real data and proper reasoning. Moreover, the study looks at the problem from a multifactorial perspective - which is needed if you want to do anything real and useful. Simply saying "this would lead to that" doesn't help anyone.

Conjectures are different from scientific verifications.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Selective reading again?

One of the key benefits of this study is a warning of the increasing obesity pandemic and the need for car manufacturers to adjust the design.

Read the Editor's summary and the study carefully. As long as it proposes something that hasn't been tested (detailed in the Introduction), it's classified as a new study. The result can be obvious - well, obvious after the result came out, obviously... It's like saying "oh that penhouse will collapse because the support looks terribly weak" but until you get the data and do a proper analysis, the outcome could be either way. When the analysis is completed, the result could be as expected but that is considered a worthy study because it verifies the outcome by using real data and proper reasoning. Moreover, the study looks at the problem from a multifactorial perspective - which is needed if you want to do anything real and useful. Simply saying "this would lead to that" doesn't help anyone.

Conjectures are different from scientific verifications.

Hia Lam. Good to hear from you.

Note to car manufacturers:

Don't wait for some scientist stating the bloody obvious, just follow the yearly published stats of population development. People get heavier, taller. since this is well known medical fact it needs no 'study' to show that heavier people suffer more trauma.?

Same goes for airplanes, trains any form of mass transportation.

Note to scientists:

Please go do some serious science, discover a cure for cancer or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
iamawesomewicked

Hia Lam. Good to hear from you.

Note to car manufacturers:

Don't wait for some scientist stating the bloody obvious, just follow the yearly published stats of population development. People get heavier, taller. since this is well known medical fact it needs no 'study' to show that heavier people suffer more trauma.?

Same goes for airplanes, trains any form of mass transportation.

Note to scientists:

Please go do some serious science, discover a cure for cancer or something.

They have. It's called Chemo Therapy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

Selective reading again?

One of the key benefits of this study is a warning of the increasing obesity pandemic and the need for car manufacturers to adjust the design.

Read the Editor's summary and the study carefully. As long as it proposes something that hasn't been tested (detailed in the Introduction), it's classified as a new study. The result can be obvious - well, obvious after the result came out, obviously... It's like saying "oh that penhouse will collapse because the support looks terribly weak" but until you get the data and do a proper analysis, the outcome could be either way. When the analysis is completed, the result could be as expected but that is considered a worthy study because it verifies the outcome by using real data and proper reasoning. Moreover, the study looks at the problem from a multifactorial perspective - which is needed if you want to do anything real and useful. Simply saying "this would lead to that" doesn't help anyone.

Conjectures are different from scientific verifications.

+1

The scientific method can (and should) be applied to everything. The Sun looks like it revolves around the Earth. Ask anybody if that was plainly obvious in the 15th century and they'd almost certainly say it was.

Petrossa you seem to say that there is a group of people who are scientists, and that this limited number of people can do research, but they can and should all research the same type of thing (or that there is some kind of Science Cabal sitting somewhere dictating what scientific experiments should be done). This is totally wrong. The people who performed this study are probably ignorant of the preceding science in the biomedics of cancer, which is significantly harder to deal with than relatively simple mechanics.

Let's do a thought experiment:

Imagine that scientific theories are the accused in a murder trial where you are the theory and you're accused of a very intricately performed murder. Who would you want defending you, the leading barristers in this area of the law armed with expert witnesses for all facets of the case or a cheap lawyer you can find who has no experience in criminal law, much less murder, who can only manage to bring out a sketchy drug dealer to provide an alibi?

I'd choose the well-experienced team over the the lesser experienced one any day, even though the cheap lawyer might be really good at putting across intricate aspects of, say, contract law.

Science is a very simple methodology for obtaining empirical truth, just like the lawyers 'prove' people have or have not broken the law. You and I do it implicitly all the time, albeit not to exacting standards. Anybody can do science, and we can all apply it to just about anything! That's what's so brilliant about the scientific method.

So yes, this experiment is "Science at its best". It's told us an empirical truth where we only had intuition and educated guesswork before it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

They have. It's called Chemo Therapy.

Having had my wife die from cancer i can guarantee that chemo is no cure, at best it keeps a cancer at bay. Only cancers that are easy to handle can be treated with chemo, but chemo itself is a carcinogen

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

+1

The scientific method can (and should) be applied to everything. The Sun looks like it revolves around the Earth. Ask anybody if that was plainly obvious in the 15th century and they'd almost certainly say it was.

Petrossa you seem to say that there is a group of people who are scientists, and that this limited number of people can do research, but they can and should all research the same type of thing (or that there is some kind of Science Cabal sitting somewhere dictating what scientific experiments should be done). This is totally wrong. The people who performed this study are probably ignorant of the preceding science in the biomedics of cancer, which is significantly harder to deal with than relatively simple mechanics.

Let's do a thought experiment:

Imagine that scientific theories are the accused in a murder trial where you are the theory and you're accused of a very intricately performed murder. Who would you want defending you, the leading barristers in this area of the law armed with expert witnesses for all facets of the case or a cheap lawyer you can find who has no experience in criminal law, much less murder, who can only manage to bring out a sketchy drug dealer to provide an alibi?

I'd choose the well-experienced team over the the lesser experienced one any day, even though the cheap lawyer might be really good at putting across intricate aspects of, say, contract law.

Science is a very simple methodology for obtaining empirical truth, just like the lawyers 'prove' people have or have not broken the law. You and I do it implicitly all the time, albeit not to exacting standards. Anybody can do science, and we can all apply it to just about anything! That's what's so brilliant about the scientific method.

So yes, this experiment is "Science at its best". It's told us an empirical truth where we only had intuition and educated guesswork before it.

Yes science at its best, proving that the laws of physics work. A bigger mass when accelerated releases more energy then a smaller one when stooped at once. That's not guesswork, that's a known fact since ages.

What did they think? That being overweight or obese gives one super strength, or a miraculous protection from trauma?

So pointless exercise in futility but hey, it keeps mediocre scientist from entering in more danger fraught terrain, such developing new explosives. I shudder at the idea, hey let's do some research if a bigger bomb causes more damage then a smaller one.

Boom. Oops it does.

Newsflash:

Study reveals that a larger bomb causes more trauma then a smaller bomb, with a small bomb only a part of the researchfacility was destroyed but with a big one the whole facility was leveled.

This study can help builders to construct stronger research facilities.

/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

Yes science at its best, proving that the laws of physics work. A bigger mass when accelerated releases more energy then a smaller one when stooped at once. That's not guesswork, that's a known fact since ages.

And that's not what the study was about. The study was about how those forces injured different body parts differently when you vary sex and BMI.
What did they think? That being overweight or obese gives one super strength, or a miraculous protection from trauma?

I would assume that they saw that obese people differed different/more damage in car crashes (as you evidently have) and actually engaged their brains (unlike what you have done) to see exactly how the variables effected the seriousness and location of those injuries.

So pointless exercise in futility

Maybe to a fan of the Dark Ages.

but hey, it keeps mediocre scientist from entering in more danger fraught terrain, such developing new explosives. I shudder at the idea, hey let's do some research if a bigger bomb causes more damage then a smaller one.

Boom. Oops it does.

Newsflash:

Study reveals that a larger bomb causes more trauma then a smaller bomb, with a small bomb only a part of the researchfacility was destroyed but with a big one the whole facility was leveled.

This study can help builders to construct stronger research facilities.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
e-berlin.org

petrossa, why do you always write about obese people and muslims? Just like latent gays who always post how wrong it is to be homo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

And that's not what the study was about. The study was about how those forces injured different body parts differently when you vary sex and BMI.

Wow. What an unknown after decades of carinjury studies. So if i get it right, decades of studies, at the beginning involving actual corpses of all sorts, and now we desperately need some halfwit to conclude the known/obvious.

I would assume that they saw that obese people differed different/more damage in car crashes (as you evidently have) and actually engaged their brains (unlike what you have done) to see exactly how the variables effected the seriousness and location of those injuries.

What the study shows, they suffer more trauma were the mass is greatest. So they've proven that the laws of conservation of energy hold up. Who'd thought.

Obvious strawman is obvious.Never understood the need for namecalling, personal attacks. It might make you feel good but it adds absolutely nothing to the discourse but the lack of proper arguments by the poster.

petrossa, why do you always write about obese people and muslims? Just like latent gays who always post how wrong it is to be homo.

Homo's suck

Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

Never understood the need for namecalling, personal attacks. It might make you feel good but it adds absolutely nothing to the discourse but the lack of proper arguments by the poster.

I was claiming that you were making a straw man argument. Hardly a personal attack.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
lamminium

Hia Lam. Good to hear from you.

Been busy lately. Exams kill freedom.

Note to car manufacturers:

Don't wait for some scientist stating the bloody obvious, just follow the yearly published stats of population development. People get heavier, taller. since this is well known medical fact it needs no 'study' to show that heavier people suffer more trauma.

Same goes for airplanes, trains any form of mass transportation.

Note to scientists:

Please go do some serious science, discover a cure for cancer or something.

Firstly, the study does not offer the kind of results that can act as guidelines for the car manufacturers yet. It is there to spawn further research.

Secondly, you don't change stuff that affects millions of users just by "mhm, people are getting bigger, so I should modify the whole product design" without convincing the industry and consumers that you have some scientific backing for the move. Every major decision is based on research, so that at least the effector has some sort of assurance. Going back to point 1, more studies are needed to see the specifics of the factors involved. Only then will the car makers have something to base their new design on.

Those two points should have been obvious.

Science is a multidisciplinary field. Your 'note to scientists' should be directed to oncologists.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Been busy lately. Exams kill freedom.

Hope you do well. When do you graduate?

If they want to convince car manufacturers they can stop right now. Car manufacturers do their own studies, and are way ahead of 'studies' showing that heavy people have greater mass hence will have more trauma.

The studies done with human corpses of all sizes and sexes was more then enough to convince them of that.?

The only thing car manufacturers need to know how to reduce kinetic energy transferred to the passengers.

If you reduce that you reduce trauma, for any weight, size or sex.

The study in question was total BS, useless stating the painfully obvious.

But as i pointed out before, better mediocre scientists studying that then something that makes a difference then in some field were at does make a difference and people get hurt.

I was claiming that you were making a straw man argument. Hardly a personal attack.

And as such a completely useless observation which didn't add to the discourse, nor did it demonstrate a particular bright insight. It was an attempt to denigrate and a definite personal attack.?

I left schoolyard a long long time ago, i don't see the point in entering one here.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

And as such a completely useless observation which didn't add to the discourse, nor did it demonstrate a particular bright insight. It was an attempt to denigrate and a definite personal attack.?

I left schoolyard a long long time ago, i don't see the point in entering one here.?

Your definition of a personal attack is quite an odd one. I, for one, don't see how attacking your argument is attacking you.

I was stating that your argument was a pointless one, one that would not add to the discourse, and that I wasn't going to waste my time arguing against it because it misses the point of the original argument.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Your definition of a personal attack is quite an odd one. I, for one, don't see how attacking your argument is attacking you.

I was stating that your argument was a pointless one, one that would not add to the discourse, and that I wasn't going to waste my time arguing against it because it misses the point of the original argument.

Well for something you have no time for you seem yuo be capable to spent a lot on not arguing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

Well for something you have no time for you seem yuo be capable to spent a lot on not arguing.

This is more of a meta-argument about the statement now.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

This is more of a meta-argument about the statement now.

You are in the wrong subforum, this one is called Science Discussion & News.

I don't know if a highschool debate forum exists, but i guess you should start a thread there:

"Pointless arguing for arguments sake, who wants to disagree with me"

Perhaps my fanclub will rep you there once i start disagreeing with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kudos

And as such a completely useless observation which didn't add to the discourse, nor did it demonstrate a particular bright insight. It was an attempt to denigrate and a definite personal attack.?

I left schoolyard a long long time ago, i don't see the point in entering one here.?

Accusing someone of making a strawman argument is not a personal attack, it is an attack on your argument. If you want to take that personally, that's your problem, but it does show that you are not equipped for debate.

What's more, it was a strawman argument. Allow me to tackle it nonetheless.

You said a bigger bomb causes more damage than a smaller bomb. Please quantify "more". If you cannot, it is reasonable to say investigation may be required to get usable data. This data is part of the reason that such studies are done, even when the conclusions can easily be predicted.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Accusing someone of making a strawman argument is not a personal attack, it is an attack on your argument. If you want to take that personally, that's your problem, but it does show that you are not equipped for debate.

What's more, it was a strawman argument. Allow me to tackle it nonetheless.

You said a bigger bomb causes more damage than a smaller bomb. Please quantify "more". If you cannot, it is reasonable to say investigation may be required to get usable data. This data is part of the reason that such studies are done, even when the conclusions can easily be predicted.

Sigh. I can't understand people getting so worked up about a non issue. Asinine remarks such as 'strawmen' are a pointless exercise in futility. They are void of information and add completely nothing to any discussion.

The study was done. Nobody asked for it because nobody needed it. Researching the obvious is a waste of money, but an all to current way of upping your publication record. This is my main point all along, scientists publishing useless studies in order to gain 'street cred'.

If they want to do so out of their own pocket, hey be my guest. But all money spent on promoting one's self can' t be used for some real study.

So please 'scientists' stop researching if water consists of H?O.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kudos

Sigh. I can't understand people getting so worked up about a non issue. Asinine remarks such as 'strawmen' are a pointless exercise in futility. They are void of information and add completely nothing to any discussion.

The study was done. Nobody asked for it because nobody needed it. Researching the obvious is a waste of money, but an all to current way of upping your publication record. This is my main point all along, scientists publishing useless studies in order to gain 'street cred'.

If they want to do so out of their own pocket, hey be my guest. But all money spent on promoting one's self can' t be used for some real study.

So please 'scientists' stop researching if water consists of H?O.

You managed to rearrange words from a previous post, well done. Try tackling my points directly next time.

Calling someone out on making a strawman argument is neither a remark, nor a "pointless exercise in futility." When you fabricate an argument and suggest that it is what the opponent is arguing, that is a strawman argument. It is exactly what you did. It is cheap and obvious.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

You managed to rearrange words from a previous post, well done. Try tackling my points directly next time.

Calling someone out on making a strawman argument is neither a remark, nor a "pointless exercise in futility." When you fabricate an argument and suggest that it is what the opponent is arguing, that is a strawman argument. It is exactly what you did. It is cheap and obvious.

Sigh. Sigh.....Sigh?

'calling out' haven't heard that since schoolyard. Weird to discuss a post and then turn it into some schoolyard brawl, scoring debating points with pointless remarks.

but hey, it keeps mediocre scientist from entering in more danger fraught terrain, such developing new explosives. I shudder at the idea, hey let's do some research if a bigger bomb causes more damage then a smaller one.

Boom. Oops it does.

Newsflash:

Study reveals that a larger bomb causes more trauma then a smaller bomb, with a small bomb only a part of the researchfacility was destroyed but with a big one the whole facility was leveled.

This study can help builders to construct stronger research facilities.

is what was called a 'strawmen' argument.

In reality it's a sarcastic remark highlighting the stupidity of researching the obvious.

So not only is the 'stawmen' remark a pointless waste of space, it's even in the meaning you seem to want it to have misapplied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kudos

Sigh. Sigh.....Sigh

'calling out' haven't heard that since schoolyard. Weird to discuss a post and then turn it into some schoolyard brawl, scoring debating points with pointless remarks.

is what was called a 'strawmen' argument.

In reality it's a sarcastic remark highlighting the stupidity of researching the obvious.

So not only is the 'stawmen' remark a pointless waste of space, it's even in the meaning you seem to want it to have misapplied.

Sarcastic remarks and strawman arguments are not mutually exclusive.

Can I tag out please, debating with this guy's circular arguments is painful.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Sarcastic remarks and strawman arguments are not mutually exclusive.

Can I tag out please, debating with this guy's circular arguments is painful.

Sure. You shouldn't have started in the first place since it has nothing to with science and everything with arguing for arguments sake.

To my mind all posts that contain dismissive adjectives are pointless. From strawmen to denier to alarmist. They don't add nothing, and if you have nothing to say don't say it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tews

Helllo Peterossa.. How ya been?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Helllo Peterossa.. How ya been?

Hia Tews, fine. Busy trying to discuss science but not getting very far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.