An absence of proof that something works is not the same as proof that it doesn't work.
SBZ - again this is just a fallacy, if you cannot prove it works, then it doesn't work.
If you were to research massage for example you would find very little that actually proves its effectiveness.
a) That's not true there is lots of clinical evidence for the effectiveness of massage in soft tissue recovery.
b) If there were no evidence then again it would prove it does not work.
Titanium frames can fly - FACT!
It's just nobody has worked out how to utilise their power yet.
They said they have no scientific proof it works... That is different. It is indeed a rubber band with a sticker on it, but once again can you prove it does not work?
Yup, I can prove they do not work. As you well know it's trivially easy to arrange a trial to prove they don't work (Although first we'd have to agree on what they are meant to do) The problem is not proving they don't work, the problem is arranging funding to carry out such a trial. You obviously wouldn't get any funding from conventional funding streams, because it's patently obvious they don't work.
But if you arrange the funding I'm more than happy to arrange for someone at work to arrange a trial. 
Juan is talking sense if only people would care to read what is written.An absence of proof that something works is not the same as proof that it doesn't work
The problem is not proving they don't work, the problem is arranging funding to carry out such a trial.
This is true as well. I am wondering why no-one have done that to be honest. All you need a a few PB, and people volunteering. Then you can test the PB against a placebo and and do your stats. You'll indeed need two test, a blind and a double blind to validate... I am curious how much money it can cost to be fair.
I will admit to having no knowledge of power bands, only from this thread, but scientific evidence is only as good as the scientists undertaking the research.
Science IMHO knows very little about how energy forces work. As juan says keep an open mind.
In this case no-one have proved them wrong. Yet.
Power Balance bands are a scientifically proved method of separating money and idiots. Above and beyond that, they do nothing.
Even if it were the case that we couldn't disprove whether it works or not (which it isn't, it's laughably easy to test), the burden of proof lies with the manufacturer of the device. It's not down to anyone, scientists or laypeople, to disprove.
They're the ones making wild claims; either they have some proof that it works, or they've made it up. By their own admission (as per the OP), it's the latter.
Science IMHO knows very little about how energy forces work.
Assuming this is true, that doesn't mean we get to make stuff up and pass it off as 'fact' to the hard of thinking.
well that weak argument is usually used when we are looking for things with strong theoretical foundation and supporting evidence
In this case there is no theoretical foundation or supporting evidence...
Science IMHO knows very little about how energy forces workWhat do you mean when you say energy force here ?electricty? radiation? Weak machnetic force ofr Chi?
Cougar thanks, they don't work apparently (although I would have like some numbers).
However do we ask manufacturers to provide proof of their claim when they claim things such as:
new fork is stiffer
new brakes are twice as powefull
DWLink work
or new coating reduce friction by 90%
I think we don't, which in my opinion raises a question why are we so trustful in some case and not in others.
N.B. I am not in any case saying you should buy a PB one more time. Just say that just saying that there is no proof they work is not a valid scientific point. After all there is no proof off plenty of things we take for granted (mostly quantum science). The experiment described by cougar at least is a first step in the way that it shows that the power balance have no effect. It would be interested to see if they can get a peer reviewed article based on that short test to be honest.
However do we ask manufacturers to provide proof of their claim when they claim things such as:
new fork is stiffer
new brakes are twice as powefull
DWLink work
or new coating reduce friction by 90%
Yes!
Just say that just saying that there is no proof they work is not a valid scientific point.
Umm yes it is actually. I thought you were a scientist?
The southern yeti are you sure? Can you send me a link where there is actually some scientific method validation about claims that new coating is better than old one?
Toys I think you need to get a good LR on peer-reviewed article. Plenty of postulate and assumption in them, with no proof as that.
Toys I think you need to get a good LR on peer-reviewed article. Plenty of postulate and assumption in them, with no proof as that.
LR?
Indeed plenty of postulate and assumption, and no proof, so all the readers can take the meaning from that, just because it's been published does not make it fact. I've written plenty of papers with theory only, it's an important part of the scientific method for lots of reasons.
What field do you work in?
Red bikes are faster though.
Now that is scientific fact — there's no real evidence for it — but it is scientific fact.
Red bikes are faster though.
Now that is scientific fact — there's no real evidence for it — but it is scientific fact.
It's been proven by thousands if not millions of observations since redness was invented.
Comp chem.
Ian you wrong... Everyone know that a five coloured stripe bike is faster
[quote]It's been proven by thousands if not millions of observations since redness was invented. [quote]
yeah but no, as atherton's bikes are blue and absalon's ones are blue or white with stripe
I haven't got a link, no. But the stiffness of a set of forks etc is certainly something that can be tested, using that science hoodoo.
Damn you for sucking me into your Troll!
I fail to see why you're having such a difficult time in accepting that something that someone made up, was made up. Are you Fox Mulder? There's having an open mind, and then there's having a commonsensectomy.
Stiffer forks, braking forces etc, are all very easy to measure. These aren't ephemeral, difficult to verify claims. You're absolutely right that we shouldn't necessarily believe everything we're told though; some industries are practically built on feeding us horsecrap.
For instance. If washing powder manufacturers really did get my whites whiter than their previous powder did every time they claimed to have done so, they'd be visible from Alpha Centauri by now. Global warming wouldn't be attributed to pollution, they'd be blaming the glow from my pants.
The cosmetics industry lies to use constantly precisely because their claims are hard to test. I've been using this moisturiser for 20 years because it claims to keep me young looking. Has it worked? There's no baseline, how would I know?
Yoghurt's got in on the act now too; put a spoonful of the stuff into a little bottle, mix a bit of milk in, claim it contains "Digestivum" (I refer you back to my earlier comment about making stuff up), give it a name that sounds like a Klingon swearword and market it to the depressingly gullible at a quid a bottle.
Homeopathy. End of sentence.
So, yes. Your question is valid, but your conclusion is wrong. We accept what we're told far too readily, but the solution isn't to blindly give credence to any old dog egg peddler that happens by, it's to question whether or not we're being conned by immoral crooks.
And to be honest, a peer review of PB bands would frankly be a waste of scientists.
Let me see if I can make this clear. And I'll type it slowly so it's easy to understand.
There is no evidence, no reason, no logic, nothing at all, to suggest that PB bands do anything at all. The only reason we're having this conversation is because someone in Marketing for their company made it up. They've now admitted this. There is nothing to test.
Sorry, define "doesn't work"?
I'll crop some of what I posted somewhere else:
Lets break this down into a theoretical example:If I manufactured and sold a hologram wristband (Faithband TM)that I claimed could improve your performance, and carried out a double blind test on it versus a wristband without a hologram, what you would almost certainly see is no difference whatsoever between the two groups test results, however, at the same time, if you compared this with a control group who were not given a wristband, you almost certainly would see a statistically significant number of those wearing either of the bands having an improvement in performance over the control group, this, as I'm sure you all know, is due to the placebo effect.
Now, if 30% of the test group improved their performance over the control group, (and this would not be an unrealistic figure) then like it or not, the Faithband is an effective aid to training in 1/3 of cases - all the improvement is admittedly only because of the placebo effect, but you cannot dismiss the fact that placebo is a very complex and highly effective psychological tool, that is not really fully understood by science...
So, in brief, I'd suggest that while the whole hologram bunkum science hype underwriting the powerband is clearly balls, that does not undermine the fact that we could well see a significant improvement in performance from a wearer, due to placebo effect (and perhaps without the sales bullsh... they would not receive the same benefit) This doesn't make them idiots, gullible, fools or worthy of derision, it makes them human beings, who are subject to a known psychological phenonemon that science does not fully understand.
My question to you all would be this - even if it is down to the placebo effect, what really is so wrong with that? The band may still deliver a tangible, measurable and provable benefit. If the benefit is real and quantifiable, then thats all that matters!
Welcome to the world of the human mind - its an amazing organ, and if someone is willing to pay £30 in the belief that it will improve their performance, then it just might be the best £30 they've ever spent...
In the latest MBUK the guy who writes the freeride column (Chris?) says he is using one and it makes a difference....
Sponsored maybe?
This is true as well. I am wondering why no-one have done that to be honest. All you need a a few PB, and people volunteering. Then you can test the PB against a placebo and and do your stats. You'll indeed need two test, a blind and a double blind to validate... I am curious how much money it can cost to be fair.
Juan, with respect, double blind doesn't test whether powerband would improve performance, only whether you'd improve performance over placebo... Now, if you could introduce a pure control to the equation, then you'd have a more accurate reflection of the efficacy - clearly this would be difficult due to the fact that you cannot put a band on people without them noticing, and even if you do that, its hard to exclude the possibility of Hawthorne effect on those who know they're being tested...
commonsensexctomy - lol
In science if you make a theory then you need to provide proof. If you do not have proof then you have a hypothesis which is open to debate but is not a "fact" or taken as such.
I agree that absence of proof is not proof of absence but the default position of most scientists should be sceptical but open minded. They may work and I'll believe they do, but only when someone proves it to me.
define "doesn't work"?
Sorry, my bad. "Doesn't work beyond placebo."
I take your point, however "should we be endorsing placebo medicine" is a whole other topic of conversation. "Should we allow people to be openly deceived by private companies" is more the angle I'm coming from.
Cougar, but would you accept that the normal "endorsing placebo medicine" arguments would not apply, we're talking about improving the performance of a healthy subject, not failing to improve the prognosis of an ill subject.
In addition, there may be an important element of self selection here, which would make a belief in the (pseudo) science a vital part of the (placebo caused) performance improvement... so, if you believe its going to work, its more likely to do so - and this is where we get into the difficult subject of "deceiving people" - if you say its going to work, and it does work (and you can actually quantify a measurable and supportable performance improvement, even if it is entirely placebo) then are you actually deceiving anyone?
And I'll type it slowly so it's easy to understand.
Sorry, I worry sometimes that I'm too subtle. (-:
In science if you make a theory then you need to provide proof. If you do not have proof then you have a hypothesis which is open to debate but is not a "fact" or taken as such.I agree that absence of proof is not proof of absence but the default position of most scientists should be sceptical but open minded. They may work and I'll believe they do, but only when someone proves it to me.
That's genius.
Cougar - Member
"Should we allow people to be openly deceived by private companies" is the angle I'm coming from.
'we have a duty to point and laugh loudly at people being stupid' - is the angle i'm coming from...
Heh, no arguments here.
cycleworlduk - Member
just signed upto be the local stockist and wondered if any of the collective had used em....
we've had a bit of interest so far.
Posted 1 month ago
Tut tut tut.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
