#1
|
|||
|
|||
Science
Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?". Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more efficent than spinning. Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this result, there was a *lot* of discussion! Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined "efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel." The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig out on sweets, that's a feature. So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have access to the results. But according to another study, they've already figured it out by themselves. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
do you know science? | RichD | General | 0 | March 18th 11 09:07 PM |
Is Lemond right on the science? | Anton Berlin | Racing | 23 | June 12th 09 09:11 PM |
Where's the science? | [email protected] | Racing | 74 | July 24th 08 01:05 AM |
Mad Dog on science | Jim Flom | Racing | 24 | October 9th 05 02:58 AM |
Bad Science | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 1 | February 5th 05 01:02 PM |