View Single Post
Old 02-08-2010, 00:12   #301
Senior Member
glock20c10mm's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Out West
Posts: 5,244
Originally Posted by Bones13 View Post
You can do what you like; maybe it will save your life someday, maybe not. My problem is that Courtney hasn't proved this well enough to make recommendations for carry ammo, yet that is exactly what he's done. Better data is crucial and we have already discussed the difficulties in obtaining it. Haphazardly collected "street stop" data and anonymous goats are simply not sufficient.
I can understand you and others feel that way. For myself and some others though, we aren't betting the farm on Dr. Courtney's work alone. A number of us have always believed from what we've seen in the past that Dr. Courtney's work holds water. None of us claim to know the exact parameters of the percentage basis that all this works off of, but myself and some others do feel Dr. Courtney's work is a good start to what we already knew existed.
I understand exactly what constitutes a good data set in order for any statistics derived from it to be meaningful. My entire undergraduate degree was based around research design and statistics and I graduated with honors. What do I have to do, post a copy of my degree? In essence, Courtney is trying to say that a projectile with kinetic energy E has a probability of incapacitation X. Calculating that probability requires large sample sizes period. Flip a coin ten times and getting 7 heads does not mean the probability of heads is 70%. Flip the coin 100 or 1000 times gives a more accurate picture.

You can calculate the objective probability of a coin flip as 1:2. It is simply not possible to calculate the objective probability of incapacitation, hence we're stuck needing large sample sizes. End of story.
I disagree. Before you ever flip a coin it's already known there's going to be a 50/50 chance it'll land heads or tails because there are only 2 possible outcomes reguardless of the amount of times you flip it consecutively. With Dr. Courtney's work each individual outcome is virtually infinite. I think we learn a lot more from individual outcomes that each have infinite possibilities, especially when beginning from a controlled study set up. Even if a data set 10 is a relatively small data set, it still holds statistical value. Maybe not to within the margin of error YOU would like to see, but statistically valid none-the-less.
You're right; he doesn't need to do a thing. But if he personally wants his research to be more persuasive, he needs better data.
Which is exactly why it's ok for us as individuals to decide either yes or no toward applying Dr. Courtney's work to our choice of SD carry round. Heck, I already had it applied before Dr. Courtney's work even existed. Now with his work available I've simply fine-tuned my choice of an SD carry round.
I don't see a problem here. In the end it's about what it takes to be persuaded. Third party validation with better data would help a great deal.
And hopefully in my lifetime it will have come to that. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.
The science is in the ability of the research to withstand criticism. Period.
This may be seen as nitpicking, but in your wording I disagree from you use of the word "criticism". Criticism can be based on fact or fiction. Either it stands up over time or it doesn't. Currently it does. I don't believe you'll ever see a change in that overall, but only in fine-tuning of what we've learned so far.
Who has credibility at stake? Any investigator's credibility rests on his ability to persuade. The methods exist to answer criticism. Scientific rigor is all about withstanding criticism. Otherwise we're back to anecdote and opinion.
DocGKR has credibility at stake if Dr. Courtney's theory holds water at all. And again I strongly disagree with your use of the term "criticism". Criticism can be honest or dishonest. Criticism can also be anecdote and/or opinion therefore contradicting your choice of using the word "criticism". Again, you may see me as nitpicking your choice of wording. But in this specific example of your use of the word "criticism" I don't believe it can be rightly used, particularily in an open forum type setting.
Um, you're contradicting yourself here. Besides, the science isn't really all that difficult to understand. There's no point to getting into a pissing contest over credentials.
I can see where it could easily be taken that way. I didn't, but don't feel it will help to spend time expaining it so I'ld just as soon move on...
That's exactly why you should care. Why are there exceptions? What do they mean with regards to incapacitation from BPW. If the means of incapacitation is physiologic why would drugs or adrenalin make a difference? They shouldn't but they do.
First of all, I'm not aware that you're buying into Dr. Courtney's threory in any way whatsoever, as least not so in as much as you'll ever choose to apply it in your choice of carry ammo. Besides the fact that you overall seem to believe Dr. Courtney's work is flawed. That said, how can you even have an opinion on drugs or adrenalin effecting the possible effects of BPW? Heck, at this point there is no one in existance that assumes to know how BPW and it's incapacitating effects even work! But you somehow KNOW that drugs and adrenalin will lessen if not completely negate it's effects all together that you don't even seem to believe exist? Please explain. I guess I'm most specifically wondering what you do or don't believe. Maybe it's that you don't know yourself at this point. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just saying.
Um, because that's what Courtney is talking about? Either we have a physiologic mechanism or we're talking about...what? Shoot a guy and he drops. Why? That's the exact point of this entire body of research, Fackler and Courtney both included. How could you possibly miss this essential point?
Fair enough. For me personally though, I don't care how it works as long as it does. Either greater retarding forces promote quicker incapacitation or they don't. Loosely, that's all I really care about. Kind of like my microwave. I don't care to know it's operating principals. All I care to know is that when I put some food in it for a certain amount of time is should come out warmer than when I first put it in the microwave. If you have to know the way everything works before you'll choose to use it, fine. I don't. There is no benefit to me in knowing why more PBPW incapacitates quicker on average, as long as it does.
It IS limited to a percentage basis. I do think the entire thing is worthy of further research. With better data the end the entire question of which caliber to choose could come down to a fairly simple test of marksmanship. If you can hit the COM of a target X percent of time with one caliber and Y percent another, you could crunch the numbers to see whether the probability of a miss with a larger caliber is counterbalanced by the increased probability of incapacitation to BPW. A lot of people shoot well with one caliber and poorly with another. Misses can't incapacitate regardless of caliber.
Well said.
Incapacitation from being shot...If drugs or adrenalin greatly reduce the likelihood of incapacitation due to BPW it would greatly alter the calculation I mention above.
True, but like you said; "If."

Free Men Don't Need To Ask Permission To Bear Arms

The Glock 29 is the most versatile handgun yet produced.
glock20c10mm is offline   Reply With Quote