View Single Post
Old 02-08-2010, 20:44   #305
Bones13's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Directly above the center of the ea
Posts: 41
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 getting it but not getting it. The coin flip demonstrates the need for large sample sizes when you CAN'T calculate the probability based on possible outcomes. That is the case that applies. A data set of 10 for such a case is simply insufficient. Statistically, 100 would likely be the bare minimum. Has nothing to do with what I would like to see. Go look at statistical significance on wikipedia. It's a good write up for laymen.

I ate, drank and slept with this stuff for two years as an undergrad; I don't want this to come off as a personal attack, but it's very obvious to me that you don't quite grasp the statistics or the requirements of good research design.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.

Me neither, but for the opposite reasons.

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.

Criticism should be clearly answerable either way fact or fiction. Take apart each point & document it. That's how it's supposed to work. I am using the term in it's technical sense in that I am assuming a serious reasoned critique.

DocGKR has credibility at stake if Dr. Courtney's theory holds water at all.

Roberts trained with Fackler as I understand it. Fackler was the anti-BPW so his stance on this isn't surprising. Fackler was trying to make sure more FBI agents didn't get killed due to bad ammo selection criteria. 10MM wasn't designed with BPW in mind but rather the ability to penetrate and make a big hole.

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.

This is true but it doesn't have anything to do with BPW. Basically there is a big drop in my ability to shoot well above a certain caliber. Has nothing to do with BPW and I suspect that any theoretical increase in the percentage likelihood of incapacitation due to BPW would not be sufficient to counterbalance the loss of accuracy.

Besides the fact that you overall seem to believe Dr. Courtney's work is flawed.

Not necessarily fundamentally flawed but lacking support of sufficient data. I also think the conclusions we could draw even if that data were better would be very limited.

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.

No problem. Just referring to the numerous anecdotal reports of people being shot and not being instantly incapacitated. Sorry, but I can't provide data, although as you mention BPW may not be the mechanism of incapacitation anyway. Oh, and wasn't it Courtney who brought up the whole TBI from BPW thing? He had pressure transducers and everything. Just sayin' because he is clearly the one person who DOES profess to know how it all works.

I keep going back to TBI from BPW as the mechanism of incapacitation because that's what Courtney himself talks about and because without a physiologic mechanism we're just talking about magic. If incapacitation occurs because a person simply decides to give up and fall down like they see on TV, BPW doesn't apply but certainly drugs or adrenalin might mitigate that. This is the heart of the problem with the M&S data; we don't really know what caused the "stop"

If we're talking incapacitation from BPW, there's really nothing interesting to discuss unless the mechanism of incapacitation is TBI. Splitting this hair is crucial because if the mechanism of incapacitation is psychologic rather than physiologic then TBI is irrelevant and so is BPW and we're back to discussing magic.

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.

That's ok. The problem I have with ALL of the street stop stuff is in the quality of the data. Collect good data and it's a whole different ball game, but that is extremely difficult to accomplish. Rigorous collection standards and large sample sizes are hard to come by as we have already discussed.

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.

I'd argue that why it works matters a lot. All research is ultimately about prediction. Predictability is the essential quality we're seeking here. That requires quality data; you can't demonstrate a predictable effect without it. Specific, repeatable physiologic events allows us to manipulate those events to our advantage. YOU don't have to know why it works, but to design better ammo SOMEBODY does.

Saying that if you shoot N people with caliber C1 will result in incapacitation X% of the time, but shooting them with caliber C2 incapacitates Y% of the time is only part of the story. If you can explain WHY there is a difference in the rates of incapacitation you can exploit it, e.g. design better ammo. Otherwise you're just blindly recording the difference. And Courtney has attempted to do explain the "why". It's much easier to show the "what" than the "why" but even explaining the "what" needs better data than he currently has.

It's all about the data.
The Audacity of Nope
Bones13 is offline   Reply With Quote