Do We Need Running Shoes To Run?

prostoalex writes to tell us The Daily Mail has an interesting look at current research in the field of running and injuries related to running. Most of the evidence pointed at a lack of any need for running shoes. Some of the more interesting points: the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury; some of the planet's best and most intense runners run barefoot; Stanford running team, having access to the top-notch modern shoes sent in for free by manufacturers, after a few rounds of trial and error still chose to train with no shoes at all."

Comments

Re:It would be cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep the Olympics as they are. I could go without shaved men rubbing olive oil on themselves and fucking each other up the ass as it went in Greece.

Re:Hmm, no...

[LingNoi]

Please don't post pretending to be someone else, it makes you look stupid. Both you and the GP make perfectly good points.

you just think you're joking.

[reiisi]

:-/

The thing that bugs me about the arguments about intelligent design is all the pot-shots taken at bad religious arguments that the design must be comprehensible to (mortal) humans.

The argument for intelligent design was originally just an example of one way to argue against a bad argument against the existence of God. Bad argument is bad argument. Disproving bad argument against a hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis.

God, if he exists, must do so in a state of perfection that would be well beyond anything that we can easily recognize. If God designs things, it would be expected that the design would appear natural.

Re:you just think you're joking.

[reddburn]

The thing that bugs me about the arguments about intelligent design is all the pot-shots taken at bad religious arguments

ID is a religious argument, despite what its proponents might have you believe. The intelligent design of life cannot be grounded in observable phenomena, and thus cannot be regarded as scientific.

Re:you just think you're joking.

[reiisi]

heh.

But, yeah, we would actually want to assume that God's perfection would appear sloppy to us.

To every thing, there is a season.

A time to be neat, a time to be sloppy.

(I'm sure that verse is in there somewhere.)

Re:you just think you're joking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-scientific doesn't have to be religious. Just because it doesn't fit in one category that you have to put it in the other. It could just be a lack of proper categorization. Though, this is more of a general point than an argument as I do believe most folks who argue pro-ID are generally arguing it from a religious standpoint. However, I'd never make the statement that every pro-ID individual is religious. I wouldn't be surprised if there's one person out there who actually believes in pure-ID. Granted, I'd still think they need to take a logic course as I can't see any true thinker following it, but I also can't say its absolutely wrong, just extremely unlikely and that other theories are much more likely and come with evidence.

Re:you just think you're joking.

[DrgnDancer]

We prove that it's a bad argument. Since a significant chunk of people are trying to push it as something that should be taught as valid scientific theory, it makes sense to refute it in any way possible. As you say, it's not even good philosophy, why should we teach it as good science?

Re:you just think you're joking.

[Dan Ost]

The ID argument, as I've seen it, requires a designer that wasn't designed by another designer, but if that un-designed designer was natural, then there's no reason that we couldn't be un-designed by the same argument. Therefore, the designer must be supernatural.

If they require a supernatural designer, then it's a religious argument.

If you don't agree, I'd like to hear your explanation of what makes a religious argument.

Re:you just think you're joking.

[scottblascocomposer]

I'm sure you meant this, but it's important to be clear that ID should be refuted by any good scientific way possible. Good science, with patience and good will, against bad science. Mockery and disdain will win no minds for the side of science.

I say this as someone who grew up in a 6000-year creationist home, and was convinced against creationism by a college biology professor who treated the subject with respect and firm but gentle argumentation. If the acceptance of good science by the general population is the goal, it's an important distinction to make.

Re:you just think you're joking.

[Lemmy Caution]

You may have ultimately take up his firm and gentle arguments, but it was also his intellectual authority, the nature of the teacher-student relationship, and the fact that you were transitioning from the smaller world of childhood to the larger world of the University and adulthood that probably had more to do with you changing your mind.

You cannot recreate those things on message boards.

Re:you just think you're joking.

[Thunderstruck]

You cannot recreate those things on message boards.

Look, whether you adopt old-earth evolution, young-earth evolution, or some flavor of creationism, one thing we can all agree on is this:

You cannot win an argument with someone in an on-line message board. You just keep going until either (a) someone gets tired and quits, or (b) someone mentions Nazis.

I'm a specialist in post-nazi argumentation.

[Behrooz]

I'm a specialist in post-nazi argumentation.