Home Forums Marketplace Table of Contents Events Member List Site Map Register Mark Forums Read



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.


Tags:

EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Reply
Submit Thread >  Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Google Submit to Yahoo! This Submit to Technorati Submit to StumbleUpon Submit to Spurl Submit to Netscape  < Submit Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12th April 2010, 09:49 AM
Simon Spooner's Avatar
Simon Spooner Simon Spooner is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: "I'm sick of flags - whatever colour. There's only one flag - the white flag.": Paul Hewson
Posts: 7,764
Join Date: Aug 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 448
Thanked 1,059 Times in 772 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Russell View Post
But, just like the arguments tabled by Rothbart, Shavelson et al., it doesn't mean it is right just because you repeat it often enough or shout it louder than the last time.
"And if you shout, I'll only hear you." U2 stay (faraway, so close)
__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32  
Old 12th April 2010, 09:50 AM
Mark Russell's Avatar
Mark Russell Mark Russell is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,140
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 300
Thanked 653 Times in 316 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertisaacs View Post
We are all permitted to have unsupported beliefs. Nothing wrong there. I suspect, Mark, that you are quite content for Dave and I to go take solace in our unsupported beliefs.
You can believe in anything you like Robert - no problem with that - and as you observe, the problems only arise when you try and force others to accept your point of view against their will or wishes, contrary to their own beliefs. For me, however, religion is more insidious, given that we allow children to be indoctrinated from an early age into that particular system of belief, without a shred of evidence to support it. I wonder what would happen to some people if or when an alien intelligent life form pays our little planet a visit and tells us religion and god is pure superstition and nothing more than a fabrication of our own frightened imagination..... Good for Stephen Hawkings - would you like me to quote some Richard Dawkins or AC Grayling?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12th April 2010, 10:28 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Good for Stephen Hawkings - would you like me to quote some Richard Dawkins or AC Grayling?
Are they cosmologists.

We indoctrinate children into lots of things with no evidence. Some (like the easter bunny) they later learn are spurious. Others (like Father Christmas) are of course real, irrespective of the lack of evidence.

But your central point is a good one. Religion works for me. FFT works for Dennis. But I'd be a fool to try to convince you my religion was real on the basis of a logical argument... because that is not the basis of it. Like most people I started with my A Priori core belief (faith if you will) then built logical arguments around it to try to shore it up. Very, very very few people come to religion as the end point of a logical investigative process. It generally happens the other way around. I've only met one person who developed their theology through a painstaking investigative process (and I'm pretty sure they just did it that way to be contrary )

Apologetics is a very different art to evangelicalism. One defends the props of belief, the other tries to implant an emotional and irrational seed of belief. That, perhaps, is where Dennis is failing. He's defending the props (badly). But we will no more change his core belief by pointing out the flaws in the props than he will every convince us of the core. He's an apologist. To win converts he needs to try evangelicalism.

If you have an audience who WANTS to believe something, who perhaps is not confident of the harder school of biomechanics, or who is too lazy to seek the harder answers and wants simply a shake and bake, works-out-the-box system of biomechanics, well then hallelujah brother we have a convert. Who will defend their core belief to the death because they want and need it to be true. Who decided to buy said belief lock stock and barrel because they wanted biomechanics to be that simple. And against whom logical argument will be futile because it attacks the props and not the core.

Cheers
Pastor Bob
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Robertisaacs For This Useful Post:
blinda (12th April 2010)
  #34  
Old 12th April 2010, 10:30 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

PS. That last paragraph was not a suggestion Dennis!!!

Oh hell, what have I done?!?!
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12th April 2010, 10:37 AM
Simon Spooner's Avatar
Simon Spooner Simon Spooner is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: "I'm sick of flags - whatever colour. There's only one flag - the white flag.": Paul Hewson
Posts: 7,764
Join Date: Aug 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 448
Thanked 1,059 Times in 772 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertisaacs View Post
works-out-the-box system of biomechanics,
Isn't that the whole point? The key word being "works"...
__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12th April 2010, 10:41 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Isn't that the whole point? The key word being "works"...
That's what we'd all like!

But only IF it works of course.

And I'm pretty sure a lot of the out the box models have bits missing.
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12th April 2010, 10:52 AM
Simon Spooner's Avatar
Simon Spooner Simon Spooner is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: "I'm sick of flags - whatever colour. There's only one flag - the white flag.": Paul Hewson
Posts: 7,764
Join Date: Aug 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 448
Thanked 1,059 Times in 772 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertisaacs View Post
That's what we'd all like!

But only IF it works of course.

And I'm pretty sure a lot of the out the box models have bits missing.
Which brings us back to the topic of evidence based medicine and specifically, WHY evidence is given to a hierarchy.
__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12th April 2010, 10:56 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Evidence, in its hierarchy is good.

This, as Dave put it so beautifully, is also great.
Quote:
Kevin, Robert and many others use a method of evidence gathering that uses universal statements, extrapolated from a generally accepted axioms, that can be applied to the singular problem by the way of logical reasoning. So while there may not be direct research that is applicable to the singular problem, deductive reasoning based on generally accepted concepts or axioms does allow one to apply universal results of scientific research to the singular problem. This in my opinion is how evidence based medicine works best.
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12th April 2010, 11:03 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Found the song for the FFT threads.

Bleed it out, Linkin park

Quote:
F**k, this hurts
But I won't lie
Doesn't matter how hard I try
Half the words don't mean a thing
And I know that I won't be satisfied

So why try ignoring him
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12th April 2010, 11:03 AM
Simon Spooner's Avatar
Simon Spooner Simon Spooner is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: "I'm sick of flags - whatever colour. There's only one flag - the white flag.": Paul Hewson
Posts: 7,764
Join Date: Aug 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 448
Thanked 1,059 Times in 772 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertisaacs View Post
Evidence, in its hierarchy is good.

This, as Dave put it so beautifully, is also great.
Yes, I read that. What is the best way to test whether the extrapolation from the axiom is valid? Can you explain to me why a blinded randomised controlled trial scores higher in the hierarchy than a single case study?
__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 12th April 2010, 11:10 AM
Mark Russell's Avatar
Mark Russell Mark Russell is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,140
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 300
Thanked 653 Times in 316 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
To win converts he needs to try evangelicalism
God forbid!

In my view, most religions have developed in order to give us just that - an ordered way of life - a moral code of conduct in which to live. Which is fine, of course, except that it is supported by a superstitious unsubstantiated theory that this code is overseen by an unseen, all-knowing, all-powerful diety who will pass judgement on us at the end of our life. Transgress this code - according to your own religious subscription - and you're doomed; subscribe to it and you will be saved. A simple carrot and stick principle. It could be argued that the construction of such a superstitious theory has merit - perhaps the human race needs an invisible, judgemental guardian otherwise we might descend into chaos and disorder. But equally, we can still subscribe to a moral code of conduct without the need to believe in something supernatural. Good morals and ethics are not the sole preserve of the believers! Perhaps when we have all been implanted with identity chips and the heavens are patrolled by an array of all-seeing satellites operated by some unknown operator with the power to terminate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the current political views and beliefs, God might just be able to apply for early retirement. But would that be real progress?? Until then, I think I might just prefer enlightenment....based on current evidence, of course!

Anyhow, in the convention of offering supporting evidence, a quote from AC Grayling in a recent article.
Quote:
There is an increasingly noisy and bad-tempered quarrel between religious people and non-religious people in contemporary society.

It has flared up in the past few years, and has quickly taken a bitter turn. Why is this so?

As one of those participating in it - and, confessedly, contributing to its acerbity - my answer might seem partisan. But both sides of the current dispute agree that it raises important questions about the place of religious belief in modern society.

Until very recently, people tended not to fall out with one another if they discovered that they held different views about religion.

There were three main reasons for this.

Most believers did not brandish their faith publicly, society had become increasingly secular in most major respects, and memories of the past's murderous religious factionalisms had bequeathed a reluctance to revive the problem. The latter's lingering consequences in Northern Ireland anyway served as a distasteful warning.

But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain.

Followers of Islam were the first to push forward: protests against Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in 1989 were an early indication of what has since become an insistent Islamic presence in the public square.

Not willing to be left behind, other faiths have followed suit. In 2004 Sikhs closed a play in Birmingham, Hindus complained about Christmas stamps Christianising an Indian theme and, in 2005, evangelical Christians protested against Jerry Springer: The Opera.

But it has not all been about protests.

In Britain public funding has gone to Church of England and Roman Catholic schools for a long time; now Muslims, Sikhs and Jews receive public money for their own faith-based schools. BBC radio has steadily increased the airtime available to religions other than the established one.

Requests for extra protections in law, and alternatively for exemptions from the law, to cater for religious sensitivities soon followed these developments: criminalising offensive remarks about religion, and allowing faith-based organisations to be exempt from legislation outlawing discriminatory practices, are the main examples.

The Labour Government has been as concessive and inclusive as it can be to all the religious groups in Britain.

This is well intentioned but misguided, as the example of faith-based schooling shows. If children are ghettoised by religion from an early age, the result, as seen in Northern Ireland, is disastrous.

In the past decade exactly such segregation has been given a publicly funded boost in the rest of the UK, at a time when religion-inspired tensions and divisions in society are increasing. The remedy for the latter should be to ensure that schooling is as mixed and secular as possible; instead, tax money has gone to deepen the problem because the Government thinks that by giving sectarianism its head it will appease it.

Yet history teaches that appeasement never satisfies appetites, it only feeds them.

In the face of the growing volume and assertiveness of different religious bodies asking for preferential treatment, secular opinion has hardened. The non-religious response has come largely from individuals who have a platform or the talent to speak; and they speak for themselves, not for an organisation.

In the US, the religious Right numbers about 35 million. Recent polls show that about 30 million Americans define themselves as having no religious commitment.

But whereas the religious Right is a formidable body whose constituent churches and movements have salaried administrators, vast funds, television and radio outlets, and paid Washington lobbyists, America's non-religious folk are simply unconnected individuals.

It is no surprise that the religious Right has political clout and can make a loud noise in the American public square, whereas the non-religious voice is muted.

There are two main reasons for the hardening of responses by non-religious folk.

One is that any increase in the influence of religious bodies in society threatens the de facto secular arrangement that allows all views and none to coexist. History has shown that in societies where one religious outlook becomes dominant, an uneasy situation ensues for other outlooks; at the extreme, religious control of society can degenerate into Taliban-like rule.

Look at the period in which liberty of conscience was at last secured in Christian Europe - the 16th and 17th centuries. It was an exceptionally bloody epoch: millions died as a result of a single church's reluctance to give up its control over what people can be allowed to think and believe.

The famous Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 accepted religious differences as the only way of preventing religion from being an endless source of war. Religious peace did not come straight away, but eventually it arrived, and most of Europe for most of the years since 1700 has been free of religiously motivated strife.

But this is under threat in the new climate of religious assertiveness.

Faith organisations are currently making common cause to achieve their mutual ends, but, once they have achieved them, what is to stop them remembering that their faiths are mutually exclusive and indeed mutually blaspheming, and that the history of their relationship is one of bloodshed?

The second reason why secular attitudes are hardening relates to the reflective non-religious person's attitude to religion itself.

Religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies.

This remark outrages the sensibilities of those who have deep religious convictions and attachments, and they regard it as insulting. But the truth is that everyone takes this attitude about all but one (or a very few) of the gods that have ever been claimed to exist.

No reasonably orthodox Christian believes in Aphrodite or the rest of the Olympian deities, or in Ganesh the Elephant God or the rest of the Hindu pantheon, or in the Japanese emperor, and so endlessly on - and officially (as a matter of Christian orthodoxy) he or she must say that anyone who sincerely believes in such deities is deluded and blasphemously in pursuit of "false gods".

The atheist adds just one more deity to the list of those not believed in; namely, the one remaining on the Christian's or Jew's or Muslim's list.

Religious belief is humankind's earliest science. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are young religions in historical terms, and came into existence after kings and emperors had more magnificently taken the place of tribal chiefs. The new religions therefore modelled their respective deities on kings with absolute powers.

But for tens of thousands of years beforehand people were fundamentally animistic, explaining the natural world by imputing agency to things - spirits or gods in the wind, in the thunder, in the rivers and sea.

As knowledge replaced these naiveties, so deities became more invisible, receding to mountain tops and then to the sky or the earth's depths. One can easily see how it was in the interests of priesthoods, most of which were hereditary, to keep these myths alive.

With such a view of religion - as ancient superstition, as a primitive form of explanation of the world sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a disproportionate say in running society.

This is the more so given that the active constituency of all believers in Britain is about eight per cent of the population. A majority might have vague beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even they do not want their lives dictated to by so small and narrow a self-selected minority.

The disproportion is a staring one. Regular C of E churchgoers make up three per cent of the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House of Lords. Now that religion is bustling on to centre-stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is no longer tolerable.

And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith.

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.

Where politeness once restrained non-religious folk from expressing their true feelings about religion, both politeness and restraint have been banished by the confrontational face that faith now turns to the modern world.

This, then, is why there is an acerbic quarrel going on between religion and non-religion today, and it does not look as if it will end soon.
For me, I would wish people to live without superstition, to govern their lives with reason, and to conduct their relationships on reflective principles about what we owe one another as fellow voyagers through the human predicament – with kindness and generosity wherever possible, and justice always. None of this requires religion or the empty name of “god”. Indeed, once this detritus of our ignorant past has been cleared away, we might see more clearly the nature of good, and pursue it aright at last. Synonymous to what we would wish our colleagues would do with promoting the principles of good, effective EBM practice in podiatry and all other disciplines.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mark Russell For This Useful Post:
Robertisaacs (12th April 2010)
  #42  
Old 12th April 2010, 12:43 PM
Mark Russell's Avatar
Mark Russell Mark Russell is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,140
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 300
Thanked 653 Times in 316 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertisaacs View Post
We indoctrinate children into lots of things with no evidence. Some (like the easter bunny) they later learn are spurious. Others (like Father Christmas) are of course real, irrespective of the lack of evidence.
Yes, I guess we do. And if the religious right would have their way we would further indoctrinate them by introducing the element of "intelligent design" into the biology curriculum. I think that that argument is exactly the same as the argument which says astrology ought to be taught alongside astronomy, or magic ought to be taught alongside modern medicine. It's just simply and utterly inappropriate. It's not part of the same story at all.

There's no question that children, when they learn history, should learn something about the religious traditions of the past and the contributions they made and the problems they caused. They should certainly learn about these things and part of that of course would have all the many, many different methologies about the beginning of the world and how life was brought about on this planet.

But that ought to be kept apart from serious science, which has a two-fold purpose. One, to communicate our best understanding of the world as it itself evolves; and the other, to teach disciplined teaching and inquiry and to encourage people to proportion their beliefs and the conclusions that they reach to the evidence that they have for them.

And if you are going to introduce something like intelligent design into biology classes you're going to muddle those two things together, which is exactly of course what the proponents of intelligent design want and interfere with the process of a proper scientific education.

Much in the same way as proponents and converts of the mystical podiatric theories would do with their own spurious philosophies.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 13th April 2010, 02:50 AM
David Smith's Avatar
David Smith David Smith is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,791
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 139
Thanked 358 Times in 244 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner View Post
Yes, I read that. What is the best way to test whether the extrapolation from the axiom is valid? Can you explain to me why a blinded randomised controlled trial scores higher in the hierarchy than a single case study?
Simon

I think that your question should be qualified by stating that in both cases all variables must be the same. I think then I already did answer that question earlier, i.e. - Hierarchy (or the level of acceptance) is based on risk and probability.

Many axioms are generally accepted'truths' but the 'truth' often lies not in its own reality but rather in the level of acceptance by large groups of people or by smaller groups of people accepted as knowledgeable in that field.

Example, 1) Almost everyone on earth (large group) would accept that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is very little risk in accepting this and the probability of the event occurring is very high based on past experience of billions of people over thousands of years.

2) Only very few people have the mathematical ability to understand cosmology and the big bang theory and yet as a population, most of us in the world are prepared to base all of our beliefs in our existence on those few scientists and mathematicians theories.

This may be because we understand the almost irrefutable logic of maths at the level we understand and so assume that maths is always infallible and logical and so therefore must be the mathematician and his theory. This is in fact a logical fallacy (Robert will correct me if I'm wrong in the detail here).

Anyway we have to believe in some system or other, we cannot believe in nothing otherwise we are nothing ourselves. The probability that these few people are correct is quite low but the risk associated with accepting is also very low whereas the risk of refuting and not accepting these theories is very high, especially if you have nothing to replace it with - Enter Faith and theology.

Therefore Axioms that have low risk in accepting and high probability of occurring are highest on the scale of hierarchy and those with low probability of occuring and high risk in accepting are lowest on the scale.

Individual assessment of risk and probability is far less predictable than the corporate one, which is why individuals can be changeable and fickle and nonconformist but groups tend to be far more immutable in character, requiring huge forces of new opinion to change their direction of thought. The larger the group the larger the force required to change them.

Great question Simon

Cheers Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 13th April 2010, 09:10 AM
David Smith's Avatar
David Smith David Smith is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,791
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 139
Thanked 358 Times in 244 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Mark

You wrote
Quote:
In my view, most religions have developed in order to give us just that - an ordered way of life - a moral code of conduct in which to live. Which is fine, of course, except that it is supported by a superstitious unsubstantiated theory that this code is overseen by an unseen, all-knowing, all-powerful diety who will pass judgement on us at the end of our life. Transgress this code - according to your own religious subscription - and you're doomed; subscribe to it and you will be saved. A simple carrot and stick principle. It could be argued that the construction of such a superstitious theory has merit - perhaps the human race needs an invisible, judgemental guardian otherwise we might descend into chaos and disorder. But equally, we can still subscribe to a moral code of conduct without the need to believe in something supernatural. Good morals and ethics are not the sole preserve of the believers! Perhaps when we have all been implanted with identity chips and the heavens are patrolled by an array of all-seeing satellites operated by some unknown operator with the power to terminate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the current political views and beliefs, God might just be able to apply for early retirement. But would that be real progress?? Until then, I think I might just prefer enlightenment....based on current evidence, of course!
I'd like to answer that in another thread entitled 'Morality:God Given or Human Invention' in the Break Room.

Cheers Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 13th April 2010, 09:12 AM
David Smith's Avatar
David Smith David Smith is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,791
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 139
Thanked 358 Times in 244 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Mark

You wrote
Quote:
In my view, most religions have developed in order to give us just that - an ordered way of life - a moral code of conduct in which to live. Which is fine, of course, except that it is supported by a superstitious unsubstantiated theory that this code is overseen by an unseen, all-knowing, all-powerful diety who will pass judgement on us at the end of our life. Transgress this code - according to your own religious subscription - and you're doomed; subscribe to it and you will be saved. A simple carrot and stick principle. It could be argued that the construction of such a superstitious theory has merit - perhaps the human race needs an invisible, judgemental guardian otherwise we might descend into chaos and disorder. But equally, we can still subscribe to a moral code of conduct without the need to believe in something supernatural. Good morals and ethics are not the sole preserve of the believers! Perhaps when we have all been implanted with identity chips and the heavens are patrolled by an array of all-seeing satellites operated by some unknown operator with the power to terminate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the current political views and beliefs, God might just be able to apply for early retirement. But would that be real progress?? Until then, I think I might just prefer enlightenment....based on current evidence, of course!
I'd like to answer that in another thread entitled 'Morality:God Given or Human Invention' in the Break Room.

Cheers Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 15th April 2010, 10:12 AM
drsha drsha is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,050
Join Date: Oct 2008
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 219
Thanked 56 Times in 49 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

I'm back.

and you guys and gals say that introducing foot typing takes the thread off the subject ??

Robert Stated:
Dennis, the reason you can't debate this stuff using standard terminology is that as the above statement, and may others you've made indicate (I liked the one about a momentary force) You don't understand it. What is to "not frontal plane pronate"? If an undergrad said that I'd go shout at their Professors.


In his 2007 lecture entitled
“Forces, Motion and Outcomes with Foot Orthoses and Running Shoes”, Professor Payne uses the following illustration to depict “rearfoot pronation”.



If you look at the skin landmarks and the placement of the most plantarly placed marker, it is the misplaced marker and not closed chain RF Pronation on the frontal plane deforming the bare foot. There is actually little to no change in the rearfoot of these this right to left comparison by my eye.

My opinion is that there is “no frontal plane pronation", no matter how you say it.

I snidely add that if an undergrad showed me these pictures referring to a pronated foot, I’d shout at their professors. (and I'll stop when you do)

Summarily, Robert, what are you trying to prove, semantically?

Dennis
Attached Images
File Type: jpg No Frontal Pronation.jpg (28.2 KB, 54 views)
Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 15th April 2010, 10:52 AM
Simon Spooner's Avatar
Simon Spooner Simon Spooner is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: "I'm sick of flags - whatever colour. There's only one flag - the white flag.": Paul Hewson
Posts: 7,764
Join Date: Aug 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 448
Thanked 1,059 Times in 772 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

If you could get some bigger markers and then place the calcaneal marker on the left foot a little more to the lateral side of the skin overlying the calcaneum, you can make this look even more dramatic. ****ing hell I've seen it all now.

Don't even think I'm going to enter into this tripe with you Drennis, i just ****** myself laughing at the picture and couldn't help but post.

I'm sure Craig, was making a point...
__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 15th April 2010, 11:06 AM
drsha drsha is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,050
Join Date: Oct 2008
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 219
Thanked 56 Times in 49 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Simon:

I just love when you talk Ph. D. talk.


Dennis
Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 15th April 2010, 11:10 AM
Simon Spooner's Avatar
Simon Spooner Simon Spooner is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: "I'm sick of flags - whatever colour. There's only one flag - the white flag.": Paul Hewson
Posts: 7,764
Join Date: Aug 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 448
Thanked 1,059 Times in 772 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Originally Posted by drsha View Post
Simon:

I just love when you talk Ph. D. talk.


Dennis
Well Dennise, when you get yours we'll be able to talk on the same level. Until such time you'll continue to express your jealousy of me in your posts and continue to talk crap.

Enough said. Bye.
__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 15th April 2010, 11:51 AM
Griff's Avatar
Griff Griff is offline
Administrator
Spam Buster
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London / Dublin
Posts: 2,496
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 196
Thanked 694 Times in 423 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Quote:
Originally Posted by drsha View Post
In his 2007 lecture entitled
“Forces, Motion and Outcomes with Foot Orthoses and Running Shoes”, Professor Payne uses the following illustration to depict “rearfoot pronation”.
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis. Swing and a miss I'm afraid fella.

I'm sure Craig doesn't need me to fight his corner on this - but I actually attended that lecture in 2007 so felt compelled to correct you (I didn't see you there Dennis? Therefore I assume you took the slide from the PDF Craig loaded onto this arena - which I have attached for those who have not seen it).

This lecture (like the biomechanics boot camps) starts by stating what the historical status quo has been, and then challenges it head on. As Simon correctly clocked - Craig was using this picture to simply make that point. Did that not occur to you when the prior slide was entitled 'Clinical Practice: Evidence based or commonly accepted wisdom'???
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Craig Payne Harrogate 2007 Part 1.pdf (764.8 KB, 4 views)
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 15th April 2010, 01:47 PM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

PMSL at Simons post. Laughed tea out of my nose.

As Ian pointed out Dennis I think you'll find Craig was using irony. But also as Ian pointed out I think he should speak for himself. Someone prod him with a sharp stick.

Quote:
Summarily, Robert, what are you trying to prove, semantically?
Summarily, Dennis, I don't think you understand how the STJ works as a triplanar joint. You remember all that stuff with knitting needles and rubber feet at university. Axes and stuff?

I've not got long, cos its late and I'm going to Bournmouth tomorrow to do a study day on Saturday, but in brief.

Ignore, for a minute, the orientation of the axis in the transverse plane. Make it a biplanar joint.

If the Axis was vertical (straight up) the joint would move entirely in the transverse plane (that is, side to side).

If the axis was horizontal the joint would move entirely in the frontal plane (rolling around the axis).

If the axis was at 45 degrees then there will be equal amounts frontal and transverse plane movement.

Pronation is dorsiflexion (in the saggital plane) eversion (in the frontal plane) and abduction (in the transverse plane). The proportions of each movement depend on the location of the axis. But for this movement to have NO frontal plane component would require the axis to be vertical. Which it palpably isn't.

Does that make sense?
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 16th April 2010, 05:04 AM
drsha drsha is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,050
Join Date: Oct 2008
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 219
Thanked 56 Times in 49 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Robert:

Thank you for schooling me that the STJ is a triplane joint with an axis that ordinarily doesn't live on any of the pure body planes.

I read Inman's treatise on "The Joints of the Ankle" published in 1976 six years after I graduated Podiatry College when I assume you were a teenager.

Who do you think I am??

I will reword my statement (for someone with blinders on like you et al) to frontal plane pathology is not the cause nor the area of treatment and the picture was selected not to deride the professor (but why don;t you expalin it anyhow Craig), it was simply to point out that the podiatry world is so fixed on STJ frontal plane pathology that it is perverted.

Another question about the feet pictured:
Where is the pathology in these feet and how would you treat it if not on the frontal plane of the STJ.
(maybe on another thread?)

Dennis
Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 18th April 2010, 08:02 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Who do I think you are? Oh you tempt me.

I think you are one of two things. Either you are profoundly ignorant of biomechanics or you are truly dreadful at expressing yourself, so that you APPEAR to be profoundly ignorant of biomechanics.

Personally I suspect the former. But I could be wrong.

You said

Quote:
My opinion is that there is “no frontal plane pronation", no matter how you say it.
This, to anyone who understands even a little about a triplanar stj, is palpably bull****. As I'm sure you agree. And it's also a completely different question to

Quote:
frontal plane pathology is not the cause nor the area of treatment
isn't it. If you say" there is no frontal plane pronation" how can you possibly expect anyone to know that what you MEAN is "frontal plane pathology is not the cause or area of treatment".

I'm also guessing your next question is not what you actually mean. Because
Quote:
Where is the pathology in these feet a
is impossible to answer from a phot of the heel. Could be gout. Could be an ingrown toenail. Could be a mortons neuroma. It's impossible to tell!

Would you like to reword your illogical question so it makes sense?
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 18th April 2010, 08:39 AM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,490
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 407
Thanked 2,139 Times in 1,175 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Robert:

Do you ever feel like you are or do you feel like you are in this discussion of yours?

Ever want to just when trying to have an intellectual discussion with certain individuals on Podiatry Arena?

Good luck, there is a solution for your ills! Do lots of and then immediately go to the gym and do some until you see lots of , and the discussion will then flow much more smoothly.
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 18th April 2010, 09:20 AM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Kevin, you always make me . You're like my very own
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 18th April 2010, 03:07 PM
drsha drsha is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,050
Join Date: Oct 2008
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 219
Thanked 56 Times in 49 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

DITTO !!

DrSha

Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 19th April 2010, 04:25 PM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

I see we have moved beyond the need for coherence again. In which case all I can say is "ice cream, due west, sodomy, cola, pineapple Brighton ASICS Lucy ."

Go on Dennis. I'm itching to know what this persons pathology is. Perhaps look up the meaning of the word pathology first before you answer though to save me having to "school you" again.
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 19th April 2010, 05:58 PM
drsha drsha is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,050
Join Date: Oct 2008
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 219
Thanked 56 Times in 49 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Robert Stated:
I see we have moved beyond the need for coherence again. In which case all I can say is "ice cream, due west, sodomy, cola, pineapple Brighton ASICS Lucy ."

I found the answer on his website under Biomechanics.

What are Orthotics

Orthotics act a lot like eyeglasses. Precisely calibrated devices designed to correct any areas of pathological function and optimise the performance of your body. Like eyeglasses your prescription must be based on an accurate diagnosis of any pathology and an assessment of how your body functions. We do not use the "one size fits all" off the shelf devices many prescribe. Like the reading glasses you may see in the chemist or supermarket these are at best crude devices which may not suit your feet, shoes, or function. Sometimes they even make matters worse!

Who are Footprints

At Footprints, we use the latest in clinical diagnostic techniques and orthotic prescription technology. We are not limited to any single "type" of orthotic device, brand, or supplier. Every device is custom made by either [b]spatial marking [/B](using a footprint), Biofoam casting (making an impression of the foot and casting an orthotic to that mould) or the very latest in Laser Scanning and direct milled orthotics. We don't use the same device for everyone because every foot is different. What we prescibe will be no more, and no less than you require!



What Conditions Can be Treated with Orthotics




There are many, many conditions which can be treated successfully with orthotics. Almost any pain within the foot, much of the pain which can afflict the joints and muscles of the legs. Often (though not always) back pain has its root in the position of the pelvis and that is much affected by the way we walk. Some have even claimed orthotics can help conditions even further up the body like neck pain and migraine although there is no clinical evidence to support this last!

Please point out the evidence for the rest of your claims!


Some of the conditions which orthotics can benefit include:-

Arthritic or other pain in the Big Toe Joint (or anywhere in the feet)

I utilized a footprint and the latest prescription technology to prescribe no more or less than what Lucy needed to treat the pain in her neck as well as the pain in her charcot foot cuboid osteomyelitis.

If I'm selling snake oil and you have the nerve to make the claims that you do over your unproven, no better than OTC orthotics (The Mentz Study) on your website, which of us is an evangelist.

NECKS PAIN!!
EVIDENCE!!
Footprints!
PAIN ANYWHERE IN THE FEET??
Prescription Technology??

You don't know who I am but I know who you are...
Robert Isaac
char·la·tan (shärl-tn)
n.
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.

Takes one to know one.
Dennis
Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 19th April 2010, 09:13 PM
Robertisaacs's Avatar
Robertisaacs Robertisaacs is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,290
Join Date: May 2006
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 454
Thanked 910 Times in 526 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

Oooo dennis, you cut me to the bone.

What, you don't want to talk about biplanar pronation or how you can tell the pathology by a photo of the rearfoot any more?

I love your last sentance btw. You call me a charlatan then say it takes one to know one. Did you think that statement through?!?!?

Looks a lot to me like you're having a tantrum dennis. Changing the subject somewhat. Do you not want to talk about those other things perchance?

If you like, I could go look at your website and find all the bits on there which are questionable. Is that really the game you're here to play?

I asked you (again) some valid questions regarding what you claim to know. I think you can't answer them. Further I think that you are getting spiteful too distract attention from the fact.

Tell you what. Take a breath, get a back rub, roll a joint, or whatever you do to unwind. Then answer a few of my questions and I'll answer a few of yours. Try to be specific though, there is a lot In your post and I don't know what bits confused you. Perhaps "how can one make an effective orthotic from a footprint". Or "what prescription technology do you use". Or "what evidence do you use when you claim to treat neck pain"
__________________
Robert Isaacs
Specialist in Biomechanical Therapies

small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe

Semper in excretum sum sed alta variat

The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 20th April 2010, 12:01 AM
David Smith's Avatar
David Smith David Smith is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,791
Join Date: Oct 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 139
Thanked 358 Times in 244 Posts
Default Re: EBM and Sacketts Empiricism

DrSha

You started of a great topic for discussion, you kept from us what was your position but we ran with it. I took the view that your opinion was that EBM was good but difficult for older or more entrenched clinicians to integrate into their practice, however you were one willing to do this. But then you reveal you are not, you just want to shout I'm the best, your all rubbish, my evidence is all that matters Why won't you all see this? With no prompting you return to straw man argument, name calling and nonsense argument. Totally countering your attempt at reasonable discussion. Why did you do this? You didn't need to go there.

Can you clarify and tell me are you in favour of integrating scientifically gathered EBM into your practice?

Regards Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Translate This Page


New To Site? Need Help?

Finding your way around:

Browse the forums.

Search the site.

Browse the tags.

Search the tags.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:26 PM.