Dad stops kid from crashing bike into parked car (+ link to video)

Rich_cb wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Hypothesis:

 

Quitting smoking causes cancer. 

That data you refer to is from 1993, mine was 2005-2010. You are wrong, my hypothesis is still correct.

 

 

Your hypothesis does not mention the date.

Neither did yours, just the graphs that you presented

Rich_cb wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Hypothesis:

 

Quitting smoking causes cancer. 

That data you refer to is from 1993, mine was 2005-2010. You are wrong, my hypothesis is still correct.

 

 

Your hypothesis does not mention the date.

You're right, apologies, there was no clue in what I presented as in your world 1993 could quite possibly have come after the years 2005 or 2010...

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich CB here's some data for you:

2005: 25% of men and 23% of women smoked

2010: 21% of men and 20% of women smoked

2005: 77.9 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer

2010: 79.4 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer

Hypothesis:

Quitting smoking causes cancer. 

Rich_cb wrote:

Here's a picture of the scientific process/method. As you can see I have collected relevant data from the literature and analysed it for patterns that would support my hypothesis. The patterns do support the hypothesis.

Where's the 'start with ideology and scratch around Google for shitty data' bit?

You don't test your hypothesis by stretching data that was compiled to do something different.

Your behaviour in this thread and others bears zero relationship to that diagram. Do you understand that? It isn't the process or that diagram that has the issue, it's you thinking that attempting to bend Google to fit your ideology is anything approaching scientific - that's the fucked-up bit. You've spent a lot of time on this: you could have done your own research by now.

"I'm pretty sure I've never debated Insurance T&C's with anyone."

Here's your warbling on insurance from all of 5 months ago: http://road.cc/content/news/226380-cycling-abroad-and-relying-nationwide...

You had a bang on the head or something?

alansmurphy wrote:

Quitting smoking causes cancer. 

No mention of the date in your hypothesis.

alansmurphy wrote:

You failed with the gathering of data as you have used data that separately tests 2 areas of your hypothesis without linking.

 

Same as mine below with smoking and cancer.

 

Follow that around your little diagram and it's as valid, if not moreso than yours!

You've got a correlation and a hypothesis.
You haven't tested your hypothesis at all.

The test that I did disproved it so you've now altered your hypothesis to be date specific.

You still haven't tested your new date specific hypothesis.

ClubSmed wrote:

The issue is that you have not gathered relevant data because you don't have corresponding data. This results in you having no patterns or data that support your hypothesis (though you are now claiming it as a theory rather than a hypothesis)

Look at the diagram I provided.

Observation: There is a correlation in the UK between increased helmet wearing and decreased cycling fatalities.

Question: Could cycling helmets have been responsible for a fall in cycling fatalities? How would they do this?

Hypothesis: Cycle Helmets reduce deaths (from head injuries).

Testable predictions:
1: Overall injury rate will not fall when helmet use increases as helmets do not prevent accidents.
2: Head injury rates will fall as helmet use increases.
3: Deaths from head injuries will fall.

Data Gathered
Prediction 1: Proved correct
Prediction 2: Proved correct in adults.
Prediction 3: No data available to prove or disprove.

So as you can see I have actually followed the method/process.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

You've got an opinion, done some shit Google-fu to try to find ANYTHING to support it, keep pulling out new scraps that don't prove what you're saying, and you see the inability of people debating against you to outright disprove what you're saying as somehow supporting your nonsense. And you either don't get the absurdity of that situation, or don't care.

You don't even know what it is that you don't understand. I remember our debate about insurance Ts&Cs - exactly the same. Zero experience, zero grasp of the subject, blagging your way through some tiresome posts based on frantic googling.

Stick to your subject matter: living under bridges and eating goats.

Wade into a discussion you don't understand, throw some insults around and then declare the other person a troll. Ok. Ps I'm pretty sure I've never debated Insurance T&C's with anyone.

I had a debate about insurance with someone on here. Don't know who.

When they found out some of my work was for insurance companies  they suddenly stopped arguing. 

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Hypothesis:

 

Quitting smoking causes cancer. 

That data you refer to is from 1993, mine was 2005-2010. You are wrong, my hypothesis is still correct.

 

 

Your hypothesis does not mention the date.

 

You're right, apologies, there was no clue in what I presented as in your world 1993 could quite possibly have come after the years 2005 or 2010...

 

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich CB here's some data for you:

 

2005: 25% of men and 23% of women smoked

 

2010: 21% of men and 20% of women smoked

 

2005: 77.9 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer

 

2010: 79.4 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer

 

Hypothesis:

 

Quitting smoking causes cancer. 

That's just brillant!!

I'm going to use your example whenever I have to explain statistics to anyone.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

The issue is that you have not gathered relevant data because you don't have corresponding data. This results in you having no patterns or data that support your hypothesis (though you are now claiming it as a theory rather than a hypothesis)

Look at the diagram I provided. Observation: There is a correlation in the UK between increased helmet wearing and decreased cycling fatalities. Question: Could cycling helmets have been responsible for a fall in cycling fatalities? How would they do this? Hypothesis: Cycle Helmets reduce deaths (from head injuries). Testable predictions: 1: Overall injury rate will not fall when helmet use increases as helmets do not prevent accidents. 2: Head injury rates will fall as helmet use increases. 3: Deaths from head injuries will fall. Data Gathered Prediction 1: Proved correct Prediction 2: Proved correct in adults. Prediction 3: No data available to prove or disprove. So as you can see I have actually followed the method/process.

You are aware that you can do free online statistics courses?

https://www.coursera.org/courses?languages=en&query=statistics

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability

(Yes learning about probability  is relevant.)

It's probably worth you doing one.  

That way then you can understand why other posters are pulling your posts apart.

Bluebug wrote:

You are aware that you can do free online statistics courses?

https://www.coursera.org/courses?languages=en&query=statistics

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability

(Yes learning about probability  is relevant.)

It's probably worth you doing one.  

That way then you can understand why other posters are pulling your posts apart.

 

Good old deflection.

Always there when you haven't got an argument to make.

Rich_cb wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

You are aware that you can do free online statistics courses?

https://www.coursera.org/courses?languages=en&query=statistics

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability

(Yes learning about probability  is relevant.)

It's probably worth you doing one.  

That way then you can understand why other posters are pulling your posts apart.

 

Good old deflection.

Always there when you haven't got an argument to make.

Is denial and avoidance worse?

Denial as in "I never debated insurance Ts&Cs" 5 months after you did exactly that?

Avoidance as in ignoring the proof (you might want to Google-Fu the shit out of that word -
it's PROOF) that, actually, you did debate exactly that on this very site 5 months ago.

I think they're worse. Or evidence of insanity.

Rich_cb wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

You are aware that you can do free online statistics courses?

https://www.coursera.org/courses?languages=en&query=statistics

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability

(Yes learning about probability  is relevant.)

It's probably worth you doing one.  

That way then you can understand why other posters are pulling your posts apart.

 

Good old deflection. Always there when you haven't got an argument to make.

I was trying to be polite instead of pointing out  like the other posters none of the data you have used supports your theories, and your statistical analysis of the data to draw your conclusions is terrible and is related to no modern scientific method taught at GCSE, A level, undergraduate degree level and post graduate degree level at Russell group universities in England and Wales.

Added to that some insurance companies do both basic and refresher courses in statistics for all workers on-site just to avoid people coming out with rubbish in front of customers.

davel wrote:

Is denial and avoidance worse?

Denial as in "I never debated insurance Ts&Cs" 5 months after you did exactly that?

Avoidance as in ignoring the proof (you might want to Google-Fu the shit out of that word -
it's PROOF) that, actually, you did debate exactly that on this very site 5 months ago.

I think they're worse. Or evidence of insanity.

I forgot a couple of posts that occurred 5 months ago.

I think it's far more worrying that you remembered them to be honest.

Bluebug wrote:

I was trying to be polite instead of pointing out  like the other posters none of the data you have used supports your theories, and your statistical analysis of the data to draw your conclusions is terrible and is related to no modern scientific method taught at GCSE, A level, undergraduate degree level and post graduate degree level at Russell group universities in England and Wales.

Added to that some insurance companies do both basic and refresher courses in statistics for all workers on-site just to avoid people coming out with rubbish in front of customers.

So point out the actual flaws in my posts.

I'll save you some time.

At no point have I said that correlation proves causation.

Off you go.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Is denial and avoidance worse?

Denial as in "I never debated insurance Ts&Cs" 5 months after you did exactly that?

Avoidance as in ignoring the proof (you might want to Google-Fu the shit out of that word -
it's PROOF) that, actually, you did debate exactly that on this very site 5 months ago.

I think they're worse. Or evidence of insanity.

I forgot a couple of posts that occurred 5 months ago.

I think it's far more worrying that you remembered them to be honest.

Slightly more than just a couple of posts: it's the same sort of nonsense as exhibited on here and other threads.

So you've either got a dismal memory or are just full of shit.

davel wrote:

Slightly more than just a couple of posts: it's the same sort of nonsense as exhibited on here and other threads.

So you've either got a dismal memory or are just full of shit.

I've just got better things going on in my life to distract me from silly disagreements on road.cc.

Nice that you remembered it though.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Slightly more than just a couple of posts: it's the same sort of nonsense as exhibited on here and other threads. So you've either got a dismal memory or are just full of shit.

I've just got better things going on in my life to distract me from silly disagreements on road.cc. Nice that you remembered it though.

Yeah, your posts suggest a well-balanced life.

But I do also copy all your posts into a date-sorted file. So when I read about someone in a helmet and graph-covered Tron suit going postal while raging inaccurately about evidence and hypotheses, I can hand it over to plod. You know, to do my bit.

davel wrote:

Yeah, your posts suggest a well-balanced life.

But I do also copy all your posts into a date-sorted file. So when I read about someone in a helmet and graph-covered Tron suit going postal while raging inaccurately about evidence and hypotheses, I can hand it over to plod. You know, to do my bit.

It's good that you have something to keep you occupied I suppose.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

The issue is that you have not gathered relevant data because you don't have corresponding data. This results in you having no patterns or data that support your hypothesis (though you are now claiming it as a theory rather than a hypothesis)

Look at the diagram I provided.

Observation: There is a correlation in the UK between increased helmet wearing and decreased cycling fatalities.

Question: Could cycling helmets have been responsible for a fall in cycling fatalities? How would they do this?

Hypothesis: Cycle Helmets reduce deaths (from head injuries).

Testable predictions:
1: Overall injury rate will not fall when helmet use increases as helmets do not prevent accidents.
2: Head injury rates will fall as helmet use increases.
3: Deaths from head injuries will fall.

Data Gathered
Prediction 1: Proved correct
Prediction 2: Proved correct in adults.
Prediction 3: No data available to prove or disprove.

So as you can see I have actually followed the method/process.

It seems pointless me trying to explain why and how you're wrong, as so many others as well as myself have tried to do in the course of this thread.
If you do not possess the intelligence needed to take on board feedback and adapt with it then so be it.
The next step in the scientific method would be to publish your findings. Why don't you try those reputed journals that you admire and see how many of them are willing to publish your paper.
Questions:
How many journals would accept Rich_CB's research methods, analysis and findings?
What will Rich_CB do when the paper is rejected by all?

Hypothesis:
Rich_CB will not have his work taken seriously but that will not change his outlook.

Testable predictions:
Rich_CB's 'study' will not be accepted by any journal (respected or not)
Rich_CB will not accept this as any fault of his data or analysis.

It's now over to you Rich_CB to gather the data, good luck! I look forward to seeing the results.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Slightly more than just a couple of posts: it's the same sort of nonsense as exhibited on here and other threads.

So you've either got a dismal memory or are just full of shit.

I've just got better things going on in my life to distract me from silly disagreements on road.cc.

Nice that you remembered it though.

I suggest you get on with the better things in your life then, instead of continuing this disagreement on road.cc

ClubSmed wrote:

It seems pointless me trying to explain why and how you're wrong, as so many others as well as myself have tried to do in the course of this thread.
If you do not possess the intelligence needed to take on board feedback and adapt with it then so be it.
The next step in the scientific method would be to publish your findings. Why don't you try those reputed journals that you admire and see how many of them are willing to publish your paper.
Questions:
How many journals would accept Rich_CB's research methods, analysis and findings?
What will Rich_CB do when the paper is rejected by all?

Hypothesis:
Rich_CB will not have his work taken seriously but that will not change his outlook.

Testable predictions:
Rich_CB's 'study' will not be accepted by any journal (respected or not)
Rich_CB will not accept this as any fault of his data or analysis.

It's now over to you Rich_CB to gather the data, good luck! I look forward to seeing the results.

Good old deflection.

Always there when you don't have an actual argument.