Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Applied Partial Differential Equations
J. David Logan
Department of Mathematics
Univ of Nebraska
Springer 2004
In Chapter 1-4, PDE’s in Biology
Dr. Logan States: In many ways mathematical models in biology are quite different from those in the physical sciences and engineering.
In the latter case, models are usually based on scientific principles and laws that can be expressed precisely in terms of nearly exact measurable quantities and the goal is to obtain precise, quantitative results.
In the life sciences, however, it is really impossible to model all of the intricacies of preditor-prey interactions, tumor growth dynamics, or the spread of an infectious disease.
Therefore the models are more phenominalogic in nature, predicting only qualitative rather than leading to detailed quantitative results. Biological systems are highly complex and often we attempt to describe only the gross features, ignoring much of the fine detail, the stochasticity, and the natural variability.
Bio-Newtonion Theories I submit fail to produce viable Level I Evidence which you all have successfully proven until now.
Please show evidence to the contrary.
CATS, The Laws of Physics Don't Apply to Them
DrSha
Could you please quit calling it bio Newtonian? There is no other kind of mechanical. Nobody builds a bridge or car based on the type of mechanics where somebody "has a guess."
and I think we've said before that clinical evidence derived from bench data and first principles (physics) do not constitute level one evidence but they do constitute level D evidence. Models which do not refer to first principles and bench data occupy a lower catagory. Since there is no lower catagory they are not EB.
Could it possibly be that because by your own admission you do not have the time to learn physical mechanics, you are attempting to show that it is not relevant? Is it the case that you don't use it BECAUSE it's not valid or is it a case of I don't use it, THEREFORE it's not valid.
And you reference refers to macrosystems like predator prey relationships. To be honest I don't see the link between that and the windlass of the foot.
Also Dennis remember last week when I tired to explain to about the laws of nature that allow us to walk, not float off in to space or fall flat on your face when standing.
These laws of NEWTON are part of these laws of Nature without we don´t excist. So to be honest the level of evidence is higher than anything it´s 100% fact.
Now you have passed your DPM so you have some smarts, if you take the time that spend making argurments on here and read some basic physic books,the same as you read at school when you were 16 - 17. Get your head around the basics then read stuff written by C Nester et al and Kevin Kirby on the axis of the MTJ and STJ joints you will see the importance of Physics in foot mechancis.
The come here and read threads on the subjects, ask question people will help.
Then after that look at your FFT system maybe there is something in which will fit with your new found knowledge you can rebuild or adjust your aproach.
It a journey for everyone Dennis no one has all the answers those that think they do are really the one who have further to travel.
Could you please quit calling it bio Newtonian? There is no other kind of mechanical. Nobody builds a bridge or car based on the type of mechanics where somebody "has a guess."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! I have only just begun until you change your tune.
Please refer to the things that you all have called me and my theory.
Have I finally found one that actually defines your theory accurately?
BIo-Newtonian, Bio-Newtonian, Bio-Newtonian.
This thread has plumbed new depths of childishness! Its not offensive Dennis, its just crap terminology.
Bio-newtonian is accurate, Its also redundant because it means the same as Biomechanical. Its not my theory, or anyones theory, its simply descriptive of what we do with orthotics. Mechanical effect on biological tissues.
Can't elucidate further, I have to take my car to the newtonian mechanic, then perhaps a game of newtonian tennis before I go home to feed my NON newtonian cat.
Applied Partial Differential Equations
J. David Logan
Department of Mathematics
Univ of Nebraska
Springer 2004
In Chapter 1-4, PDE’s in Biology
Dr. Logan States: In many ways mathematical models in biology are quite different from those in the physical sciences and engineering.
In the latter case, models are usually based on scientific principles and laws that can be expressed precisely in terms of nearly exact measurable quantities and the goal is to obtain precise, quantitative results.
In the life sciences, however, it is really impossible to model all of the intricacies of preditor-prey interactions, tumor growth dynamics, or the spread of an infectious disease.
Therefore the models are more phenominalogic in nature, predicting only qualitative rather than leading to detailed quantitative results. Biological systems are highly complex and often we attempt to describe only the gross features, ignoring much of the fine detail, the stochasticity, and the natural variability.
Bio-Newtonion Theories I submit fail to produce viable Level I Evidence which you all have successfully proven until now.
Please show evidence to the contrary.
CATS, The Laws of Physics Don't Apply to Them
DrSha
Robert: Why didn't you respond to the good Ph.D's textbook quote and my take. (the thread!)
In response to your diverting and withdrawing response:
This thread has plumbed new depths of childishness! Its not offensive Dennis, its just crap terminology.
So Functional Fag Typing Wasn't?
Bio-newtonian is accurate, Its also redundant because it means the same as Biomechanical.
Maybe in your mind (or warp).
Should we pull up definitions?
Its not my theory, or anyones theory, its simply descriptive of what we do with orthotics. Mechanical effect on biological tissues.
No, Using Bio-Newtonian exposes the need to differentiate between physical applications of the Laws of Newton and those that relate to biological applications.
Once again, if the bird fell from Newton’s Tree, it would have flown away and never hit his head!
I am pointing out that the readers of your Bio-Newtonian work should not make the mistake of valuing it as strongly as if it was performed on cadavers or wooden blocks and realize that any evidence produced from this theory should be greatly reduced in applicability when relating to a specific clinical encounter with a living, functioning, variable patient.
The promoters of Bio-Newtonian Theory on The Arena are extremely biased towards their theory and once again, that greatly reduces the ability of its evidence to be applied to EBP.
Can't elucidate further, I have to take my car to the newtonian mechanic, then perhaps a game of newtonian tennis before I go home to feed my NON newtonian cat.
Isn’t this where the dogs of The Arena (you know who you are) state that you are running away from participating or avoiding responding to the thread or other questions that are uncomfortable for you to answer......the good Ph.D’s Textbook quote and the validity of my conclusion that Bio-Newtoniam (misspelled for Spooner) Theory is qualitiative at best.
You can hide under the blankets over your head safely at home and maybe when you wake up I will have gone away (NOT) but all you are actually doing is giving me time to use my EBM skills that you claim don't exist or are inferior to yours to develop an entire body of evidence against the Level, Value and Applicability of The Bio-Newtonian Theory.
Exact forces applied to tissue stress variablities may not have the same effect.
Just my take.
Graham,
Please explain your thinking here; I don't follow your thought pathway.
Variations in an individuals " tissue Stress" make up will respond differently from another individual when the same amount of force is applied in the same place. Therefore, how can we apply pure Newtonian principals to a biological structure that has different qualities for each individual?
__________________
Graham Curryer
None of us know what we are doing, but some of us know more about what we are not doing than others!::
Variations in an individuals " tissue Stress" make up will respond differently from another individual when the same amount of force is applied in the same place. Therefore, how can we apply pure Newtonian principals to a biological structure that has different qualities for each individual?
Graham, the response of a given tissue to a given loading force obeys the laws of physics. Variation between individual tissues will determine the stress/ strain within the target tissue. This does not negate the application of Newtonian principles to the human body. As a point of fact, when discussing stress and strain it's really the work of Hooke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hooke and later, Young http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Young_(scientist), that are key, although Newton cannot be ignored. The great thing about Young's modulus is that it depends only upon the material, i.e. bone, tendon, ligament etc. not upon it's geometry. So, it is the human variation in the material properties of the tendon, ligament etc, i.e. fibre population types / orientation etc. which will determine it's load/ deformation characteristics- still physics, still obeying the laws. And force (i.e. Newton), is always there.
So much anger, hopefully this helps bring a smile to all folks
I would use The Con Edison Quote as they destroy NYC streets to accomplish their goals,
DIG WE MUST!
Weber: Newtonian Biomechanics is in its infancy and will show great fruit in the future.
I am all for it. I foster it. I support it.
I have offered $2000 to support research of functional foot typing on The Arena (check out the childish responses).
There is a growing body of evidence supporting Bio-Newtonian Theory that I am applying to my EBP. however , I am biased at this time and fishing for the opposing position (take a look at Kevin's list of evidence for his bias) for acceptance
I would love to stop and join the band (no, the sideshow).
There is no doubt that Newtonian Laws can prove the need for a cane in the rehab of a patient who has had a knee replacement. diagrams can be made, the momentum, equlibrium, torques, stresses, inertia formula's would prove it. Not knowing those formulaes, etc. hasn't kept me from recommending canes or utilizing the evidence that has been produced by researchers.
I am arguing that until Newtonian Biomechanics (can we agree on this one and reduce the anger and replace also consider replacing SALRE with this term as Kevin has come so far beyond SALRE) matures it is no more valid than any other theory for use in EBP when a patient may weigh 200 or 400. May have a support system or not, may be challenged physically or mentally, etc, etc and dare I say it, has started out with a foot type-specific set of unique characteristics that shoukd be considered.
In addition, I get the huge feeling that yours is a closed club unless I become an engineer or that a DPM not discussing tissue stress is on the path to hell and that all podiatry schools except those not under Kevin's guidance should be blown up, etc.
Kevin and his followers have built a Newtonian "box" but you are way too protective of its borders and current principles. You are acting as if it has no faults and even if it did, you are the only one with positive ideas and answers to fix them in order to carry you forward.
I had crafted a long and elegant response to this and my ****ing computer blipped. So I shall be a little more terse. Sorry. The first one was nicer.
Quote:
Robert: Why didn't you respond to the good Ph.D's textbook quote and my take. (the thread!)
I did. I shall do so again.
The reference you quoted refers to using mathematical models to predict macro systems like predator prey relationships and cellular activity.
You are talking about useing newtonian physics to predict a mechanical system comprising joints, lever arms and such.
They are what we refer to as "completely different". The paper has no relevance to your contention. You can't use mathmatical models to predict the sexual performance of the rhesus monkey either, does'nt prove it can't work when designing a jet plane!
Quote:
I am arguing that until Newtonian Biomechanics (can we agree on this one and reduce the anger and replace also consider replacing SALRE with this term as Kevin has come so far beyond SALRE) matures it is no more valid than any other theory for use in EBP when a patient may weigh 200 or 400. May have a support system or not, may be challenged physically or mentally,
That is certainly what you are saying. I'm not sure you are arguing it though. That implies a logical basis for your statement. WHY do you not think physics applies to bio mechanical systems. Your reference is irrelevant. What else do you have?
Quote:
when you wake up I will have gone away (NOT) but all you are actually doing is giving me time to use my EBM skills that you claim don't exist or are inferior to yours to develop an entire body of evidence against the Level, Value and Applicability of The Bio-Newtonian Theory.
I bolded that because its so friggin ridiculous it deserves it.
Verily, I quake. What will this body of evidence consist of Dennis? Bench data? RCTs? Outcome studies? Kinematic / kinetics work? How will you develop a body of evidence against the value of something which by your own admission you do not understand? Where you going to publish?
Or will it be the OTHER type of evidence. The type where you do somthing which works and declare it to be EBM because it worked on a patient one time (a claim which can be made by every quack, loony, witch doctor and homeopath BTW). Do share. What are your plans?
Or is it a tip top secret... (shhh keep it dark).
Quote:
Isn’t this where the dogs of The Arena (you know who you are) state that you are running away from participating or avoiding responding to the thread or other questions that are uncomfortable for you to answer......the good Ph.D’s Textbook quote and the validity of my conclusion that Bio-Newtoniam (misspelled for Spooner) Theory is qualitiative at best.
Qualitative now? Shesh make up your mind! You said it was quantitative a minute ago.
Quote:
Using Bio-Newtonian exposes the need to differentiate between physical applications of the Laws of Newton and those that relate to biological applications
.
Is there anyone who understands those laws and that physics who agrees with you that such a need exists?
The laws of newton apply unless you are sub atomic or on star trek. Whether we use them appropriately and fully to model, or whether the unknown elements make such models 100% accurate... that we can argue. But they apply. Biological IS physical.
Quote:
You are acting as if it has no faults
Of course it has faults. But is there another system with LESS faults? Which is more consistent, or predictable or proven? It certainly ain't neoteric biomechanics!
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Neoteric adj. literary recent; newfangled; modern.
Biomechanics n. The study of the mechanical laws relating to the movement or structure of living organisms.
So, is this "neoteric biomechanics" a newfangled study of the mechanical laws relating to movement, or, is it ignoring mechanical laws? You need to decide, Dennis. If you are discounting Newton's mechanical laws relating to movement, then who's laws are you employing? Since, if it is ignoring the mechanical laws relating to movement then it isn't, by definition, biomechanics. In which case, you better think of a new name for it. I suspect that the term "neoteric" is also a misnomer, since this foot-typing approach is hardly new. I've got several names for it already. One of them is "thirty years too late"; another is "oxymoron biomechanics".
Within the somewhat esoteric (often semantic) arguments made by DrSha, there lurks a fundamental misunderstanding of how it is that Newtonian mechanics relate to the body, its movement and the causality of symptoms:
The understanding of mechanical laws (specifically qualified by Kirby above) is essential to understand how it is that the internal and external environment of the foot interact during function or delivery of its biological purpose. This is not simply to clarify a shared language with other specialties who share our interest (although very important) but also to introduce legitimate physical laws that can be employed to qualify and quantify such forces. That such forces cannot always be readily measured directly does not diminish their relevance or significance in planning orthotic (or indeed surgical) interventions. It is the lack of functional equilibrium between these environments that tends towards what we recognise as symptoms or physical manifestations of stress. That is to say, it is forces or their relative imbalance that produces a sequence of internal events that lead to pain, along with frequently observed patterns of dysfunction.
The suggestion that any biomedical system is not exposed to such laws, especially when movement of mass is the prime purpose, is clearly an intellectual folly. However, DrSha seems to suggest that rather than this, it is the individual, idiosyncratic variability of a multi-system interaction that obfuscates such physical laws which thereby renders them irrelevant. This is a medical misconstruction that reflects a discontinuous thought process.
The morphological, neuromuscular and biochemical processes that characterise individual phenotypes demonstrate increasingly understood interactions that collectively can be configured to describe functional traits. Furthermore, dissimilarities within each studied population are likely to demonstrate continous variation of such traits as they are likely to be strongly influenced by polyepigenetic processes. To regard this biomedical complexity as a justification to ignore laws that WILL apply to any moving object (inaminate or otherwise) is to 'stick one's head in the sand'. We should instead engage with the fundamental aspects of science that are understood and seek improved understanding of how qualified laws interact with other biological systems to produce the individual entropic responses with which we are confronted.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Greg Quinn For This Useful Post:
Within the somewhat esoteric (often semantic) arguments made by DrSha, there lurks a fundamental misunderstanding of how it is that Newtonian mechanics relate to the body, its movement and the causality of symptoms:
The understanding of mechanical laws (specifically qualified by Kirby above) is essential to understand how it is that the internal and external environment of the foot interact during function or delivery of its biological purpose. This is not simply to clarify a shared language with other specialties who share our interest (although very important) but also to introduce legitimate physical laws that can be employed to qualify and quantify such forces. That such forces cannot always be readily measured directly does not diminish their relevance or significance in planning orthotic (orindeed surgical) interventions. It is the lack of functional equilibrium between these environments that tends towards what we recognise as symptoms or physical manifestations of stress. That is to say, it is forces or their relative imbalance that produces a sequence of internal events that lead to pain, along with frequently observed patterns of dysfunction.
The suggestion that any biomedical system is not exposed to such laws, especially when movement of mass is the prime purpose, is clearly an intellectual folly. However, DrSha seems to suggest that rather than this, it is the individual, idiosyncratic variability of a multi-system interaction that obfuscates such physical laws which thereby renders them irrelevant. This is a medical misconstruction that reflects a discontinuous thought process.
The morphological, neuromuscular and biochemical processes that characterise individual phenotypes demonstrate increasingly understood interactions that collectively can be configured to describe functional traits. Furthermore, dissimilarities within each studied population are likely to demonstrate continous variation of such traits as they are likely to be strongly influenced by polyepigenetic processes. To regard this biomedical complexity as a justification to ignore laws that WILL apply to any moving object (inaminate or otherwise) is to 'stick one's head in the sand'. We should instead engage with the fundamental aspects of science that are understood and seek improved understanding of how qualified laws interact with other biological systems to produce the individual entropic responses with which we are confronted.
Dr. Quinn:
Your swarthy and condescending attitude reflects your bias.
You are obviously a debauchee of The Arena.
My work reverberates The Laws of Newton. Regrettably for you, it has habitually found that the pertinence of these laws to produce analytical awards when making clinical decisions over questions that arise in disengaged functioning subjects is greatly truncated when compared to the inexorable appliance of these same laws in exanimate subjects.
The materiality of Newton's Laws is not in question in my armamentarium of medicine but I raise weighty doubts on their constancy when correlated to EBP.
DrSha
To respond to your ridculous statement that I bolded: These forces which we all know exist (and I do not deny or look to reduce in import) have reduced relevancy and applicability when applied to a human, functioning subject at the clinical level when making orthotics or decisions on the very kinetics and kinematics that they define (for me).
FYI:
The Thesaurus which I used to create this response (I am impressed if you did not use one) has NO THESAURUS RESULTS FOR:
Biomechanics
Bioengineering
BioArchitecture or
BioNewtonian
The transfer of the incontrovertable scientific and mathematical homogenious nature of the principles and practice of
Mechanics
Engineering
Architecture
or
Newtons Laws
applicability to ZOETIC SUBJECTS
with regards to any of their BIO equivilants is APOCRYPHAL and unwarrented and because of your skills and credentials borders on malevolent when applied to those with cross-purposes like me.
Summarily:
Your premise that Newton's Laws apply equally to apples and cats in motion is the basis for my heresy and will be the basis that will eventually expose you all as mercenary CHARLATANS.
Goodness me. What on earth provoked that response? Unfortunately, one of the very type that has dissuaded me from posting before very recently. Malevolence coupled with debauchery are not characteristics with which I have been associated before. The implication that I would require a thesaurus to construct a coherent discussion point I shall ignore.
It is my contention that efforts to integrate scientific knowledge in our chosen field are fairly new. Additionally, I am attempting to point out that physical laws are subject to a complex and concomitant interaction with other biological systems to deliver an ultimate biological purpose. That this might resonate with what you are trying to say and perhaps move the discussion forwards was perhaps a forlorn hope. I would like to clarify however for other readers, that it was well intentioned.
FYI:
The Thesaurus which I used to create this response (I am impressed if you did not use one) has NO THESAURUS RESULTS FOR:
Biomechanics
Bioengineering
BioArchitecture or
BioNewtonian
The transfer of the incontrovertable scientific and mathematical homogenious nature of the principles and practice of
Mechanics
Engineering
Architecture
or
Newtons Laws
applicability to ZOETIC SUBJECTS
with regards to any of their BIO equivilants is APOCRYPHAL and unwarrented and because of your skills and credentials borders on malevolent when applied to those with cross-purposes like me.
Summarily:
Your premise that Newton's Laws apply equally to apples and cats in motion is the basis for my heresy and will be the basis that will eventually expose you all as mercenary CHARLATANS.
The Biomechanical Engineering (BME) Group offers research and teaching programs that focus on the application of mechanical engineering principles to biology and medicine. Biomechanical Engineering at Stanford has maintained a leadership position in the field by defining itself at multiple length scales including: the cell, tissue, organ, and the physiological systems level. A key element of the program is that research and education approaches are motivated by clinical applications of fundamental principles. Thus the group fosters a multidisciplinary approach that includes strong interactions with the school of medicine as well as other engineering disciplines. The BME Group has particularly strong research interactions with the Mechanics and Computation Group and the Design Group in the Mechanical Engineering Department as well as the Departments of Bioengineering, Orthopaedic Surgery, Surgery, Medicine, and Radiology, and the Biodesign Program in the School of Medicine.
Topics of studies include the mechanics and mechanobiology of cells and tissues, tissue engineering and the pathogenesis and treatment of diseases using methods including cell and culture, tissue mechanics, imaging, microscale biosensor fabrication, biofluidics, human motion capture and computational methods. Design and evaluation of medical implants, devices, and procedures are also important aspects of the BME program. Student research projects reflect the overall research program of the BME Group.
BME is one of five groups in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. BME originated as the Biomechanical Engineering Program within the Design division. The BME Program was formed in 1991 and underwent a rapid expansion. In December 1995, the Program became an independent division (now group) within Mechanical Engineering, and the group and faculty are experiencing ongoing growth.
The research activities of the Soft Tissue Biomechanics Laboratory focus on the function, degeneration and regeneration of articular cartilage and fibrocartilage, with an emphasis on understanding the complex interactions between biophysical and biochemical cues in controlling cell behavior. Our approach combines contemporary approaches from a variety of disciplines including experimental and theoretical mechanics, cell and tissue culture, imaging, biochemistry and molecular biology.
Mechanobiology of skeletal tissues lies at the heart of two of the most common skeletal diseases in the elderly...osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. Due to our aging population, the prevalence of these diseases is increasing each year and motivates much of our research.
Projects that are currently underway include the following:
Jeff's note: the following are links to research and can be found at :http://starlab.stanford.edu/research.html
bone strength, structure & remodeling
knee meniscectomy & osteoarthritis biomechanics
periosteum biomechanics
tissue engineering
mechanical properties of cartilage
patellofemoral pain mechanism & cartilage modeling
Dennis, to suggest that your work is cross purposed is fine, but you said it in a way that implies that the work of others is not. Nothing could be further from the truth. I posted the information from Stanford's website to demonstrate the pragmatic nature and application of biomechanical education and research that is being conducted at just one of many prestigious educational institutions.
It would be impossible for man to ambulate without friction. Friction can be explained by applying the laws of physics. You seem to be dismissing or devaluing the application of the laws of physics to gait, gait related pathology and ultimately to foot orthotic therapy. You claim to have an EBM practice, but you offer no scientific evidence to support your claims and you seem to snub the scientific community because you don't believe we can apply the laws of physics to biological (“zoetic”) subjects. How else can any of it be explained? The flaw in your logic is this: Our absence of knowledge doesn't make our existing facts invalid. The fact that there are variables or factors that can’t be measured doesn't invalidate the factors we can measure. Any valid model of foot function and orthotic therapy must be consistent with the existing laws of science. The burden is on those who claim that these laws can’t be applied to living structures to prove why these laws are inapplicable or invalid and ideally, to supply some other plausible explanation. Until then, scientists will use the existing facts, including Newton’s laws to conduct their research can create models. What other option is there other than to stop looking for answers?
Within the somewhat esoteric (often semantic) arguments made by DrSha, there lurks a fundamental misunderstanding of how it is that Newtonian mechanics relate to the body, its movement and the causality of symptoms:
The understanding of mechanical laws (specifically qualified by Kirby above) is essential to understand how it is that the internal and external environment of the foot interact during function or delivery of its biological purpose. This is not simply to clarify a shared language with other specialties who share our interest (although very important) but also to introduce legitimate physical laws that can be employed to qualify and quantify such forces. That such forces cannot always be readily measured directly does not diminish their relevance or significance in planning orthotic (or indeed surgical) interventions. It is the lack of functional equilibrium between these environments that tends towards what we recognise as symptoms or physical manifestations of stress. That is to say, it is forces or their relative imbalance that produces a sequence of internal events that lead to pain, along with frequently observed patterns of dysfunction.
The suggestion that any biomedical system is not exposed to such laws, especially when movement of mass is the prime purpose, is clearly an intellectual folly. However, DrSha seems to suggest that rather than this, it is the individual, idiosyncratic variability of a multi-system interaction that obfuscates such physical laws which thereby renders them irrelevant. This is a medical misconstruction that reflects a discontinuous thought process.
The morphological, neuromuscular and biochemical processes that characterise individual phenotypes demonstrate increasingly understood interactions that collectively can be configured to describe functional traits. Furthermore, dissimilarities within each studied population are likely to demonstrate continous variation of such traits as they are likely to be strongly influenced by polyepigenetic processes. To regard this biomedical complexity as a justification to ignore laws that WILL apply to any moving object (inaminate or otherwise) is to 'stick one's head in the sand'. We should instead engage with the fundamental aspects of science that are understood and seek improved understanding of how qualified laws interact with other biological systems to produce the individual entropic responses with which we are confronted.
Elegant, eloquent, and right on the money.
Got to be one for quote of the year.
Regards Dave Smith
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
The morphological, neuromuscular and biochemical processes that characterise individual phenotypes demonstrate increasingly understood interactions that collectively can be configured to describe functional traits. Furthermore, dissimilarities within each studied population are likely to demonstrate continous variation of such traits as they are likely to be strongly influenced by polyepigenetic processes. To regard this biomedical complexity as a justification to ignore laws that WILL apply to any moving object (inaminate or otherwise) is to 'stick one's head in the sand'. We should instead engage with the fundamental aspects of science that are understood and seek improved understanding of how qualified laws interact with other biological systems to produce the individual entropic responses with which we are confronted.
Greg Stated:
Malevolence coupled with debauchery are not characteristics with which I have been associated before
DrSha replies:
Welcome to the club. I have never been accused of or called the things that I have on The Arena either.
The fact that bioengineering is young and is the future of where our science is going is very clear and comfortable to me.
My complaint is the posture taken on this site as if the science is already mature, proven and totally capable of answering every clinical question that arises.
I have stated that I understand physics, Newton's Laws and their importance but I do not understand fizzics and it has been demanded of me to learn the fizzics, do my own research and obey the dictums being taught here without question.
It sounds like the BioEngineering Dept at Stanford is acting in a manner more fitting as it associates with the clinical areas at Stanford Med. They seem to be fostering relationships rather then demanding conversion.
Furthermore, and correct me if I am wrong, biomedical newtonian theory has not yet produced any viable, clinically applicable level I evidence (other than medial knee OA using a wedge that would be harmful to many feet and postures).
I argue that that leaves room to look at other theories not blow them out of the water as is routinely done here.
Finally, if feet vary so much as a bell curve in toto, why not subgroup them for purposes of clinical exam and care and research in order to have less error and more focused care and results. What's so crazy about that?
My complaint is the posture taken on this site as if the science is already mature, proven and totally capable of answering every clinical question that arises.
I have stated that I understand physics, Newton's Laws and their importance but I do not understand fizzics and it has been demanded of me to learn the fizzics, do my own research and obey the dictums being taught here without question.
What is fizzics? We all have to do our own research Dennis, unless we can pay someone to do it for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drsha
Furthermore, and correct me if I am wrong, biomedical newtonian theory has not yet produced any viable, clinically applicable level I evidence (other than medial knee OA using a wedge that would be harmful to many feet and postures).
Firstly, your foot-typing approach has produced what level 1 evidence? Secondly, show me the level 1 evidence that valgus wedging is harmful to many feet and postures...
Quote:
Originally Posted by drsha
I argue that that leaves room to look at other theories not blow them out of the water as is routinely done here.
From an excellent paper I read today:
"To be scientifically useful, a theory
must be prescriptive and make predictions
that then should be tested. If
the theory survives a series of falsifying
tests, it may gain credence."
Kuo Arthur D; Donelan J Maxwell: Dynamic principles of gait and their clinical implications. Physical therapy 2010;90(2):157-74
By presenting your theories here in the absence of experimental data to support your contentions, then the falsifying tests can only begin with the asking of questions. If you had published your theories in a peer -reviewed journal, the paper would be questioned by your peers in much the same way. If anyone had the time, money and inclination they could perform physical experiments to test you hypotheses. But to be honest, if the theory doesn't appear water-tight in the first place, why go to that time and expense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drsha
Finally, if feet vary so much as a bell curve in toto, why not subgroup them for purposes of clinical exam and care and research in order to have less error and more focused care and results. What's so crazy about that?
You can sub-group data, but you first need to demonstrate that the probability that a member of one sub-group could also belong to a another sub-group is not too great. Statistical processes, Dennis. But, that is not what you want or what you are talking about. You want us to accept your method of foot-typing as valid, so first you must demonstrate the validity... Then we need to see if it is better than another method of sub-grouping the data, for example using the foot posture index which has demonstrable validity and reliability through published research.
Then we need to see if it is better than another method of sub-grouping the data, for example using the foot posture index which has demonstrable validity and reliability through published research.
Originally Posted by drsha
Furthermore, and correct me if I am wrong, biomedical newtonian theory has not yet produced any viable, clinically applicable level I evidence (other than medial knee OA using a wedge that would be harmful to many feet and postures).
Firstly, your foot-typing approach has produced what level 1 evidence? Secondly, show me the level 1 evidence that valgus wedging is harmful to many feet and postures...
if we can agree that neither of us has proven our theory with level I evidence?
I for one, have not
if we can agree that neither of us has proven our theory with level I evidence?
I for one, have not
DrSha
No we can't agree on that! Since, the theory based on physics and Newtonian principles does have level 1 evidence (as you pointed out); while your theory does not (a fact which you concede above). The fact that I, personally, did not generate that evidence is neither here nor there to this discussion.
“I been silent so long now it's gonna roar out of me like floodwaters and you think the guy telling this is ranting and raving my God; you think this is too horrible to have really happened, this is too awful to be the truth! But, please. It's still hard for me to have a clear mind thinking on it. But it's the truth even if it didn't happen”
No we can't agree on that! Since, the theory based on physics and Newtonian principles does have level 1 evidence (as you pointed out); while your theory does not (a fact which you concede above). The fact that I, personally, did not generate that evidence is neither here nor there to this discussion.
Dr. Spooner:
As I am interested in the amount of Level I Evidence BioNewtonian Theory has produced to this date and as I wish to have a starting point from which to continue to grow my work, if you could list those Level I EBM additions to the literature so that I may examine them, I can then state that my work has none and yours has ......
Thus creating a beginning for the state of Level I Evidence in biomechanics. Other theorists could then list their level of data and we will have "The Current State of Biomechanics Level I EBM".
DrSha
Dr. Spooner:
As I am interested in the amount of Level I Evidence BioNewtonian Theory has produced to this date and as I wish to have a starting point from which to continue to grow my work, if you could list those Level I EBM additions to the literature so that I may examine them, I can then state that my work has none and yours has ......
Try using google with key words such a valgus wedge knee etc, sooner or later Dennis you are going to have to start doing some research for yourself; research includes finding the evidence.
Bio-Newtonian Theory Quantitative At Best
Its not offensive Dennis, its just crap terminology. 
:
Hybrid Mode
