UKBouldering.com

SCIENCE!!! (Read 125759 times)

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#50 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 03:43:41 pm
Being a scientist and academic, I read the first couple of paragraphs, skipped to the end and forgot about it all.

was it worth reading? ;)

andy_e

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8836
  • Karma: +275/-42
#51 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 03:46:41 pm
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#52 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 03:53:05 pm
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.

Yup - but this was a web page. No piccies or clear abstract (and I didnt like the background) ;)

Though the parts I did read were miles more interesting than the thesis I'm marking at the moment....


psychomansam

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1179
  • Karma: +66/-11
#53 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 03:56:42 pm
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.

This is why I like philosophy. It doesn't even have a method section which you have to skip over.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#54 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 04:00:30 pm
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.

This is why I like philosophy. It doesn't even have a method section which you have to skip over.

Just a mind numbing contextualisation section... ;)

psychomansam

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1179
  • Karma: +66/-11
#55 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 04:01:05 pm
Your claim 'common in psychology' appears to pejoratively imply that such howlers are more common in this science than others.

If only it were so.

Its the lack of coherent paradigm in psychology (as suggested by Khune) which is the source of many of its problems, compounded by the attempt to be quantitative in its analysis when its squarely in the realm of qualitative research, as mentioned in the article itself and the whole point of the criticism of the claimed 2.9:1 ratio.

From a statistical point of view, psychologists I've met have a huge hang-up on p < 0.05 which is misguided, and have a pretty poor understanding of statistics in general.

I don't see physicists or chemists using qualitative methods to study their quantitative subject matter, but if you've any citations of such practice please do link to them.

Oh sweet yawning Jesus. As if you actually want to start arguments like that here. My science is better than your science. Blah blah google-fighting blah. Go eat a croissant.

psychomansam

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1179
  • Karma: +66/-11
#56 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 04:04:40 pm
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.

This is why I like philosophy. It doesn't even have a method section which you have to skip over.

Just a mind numbing contextualisation section... ;)

Fuck that. Stop reading Derrida.

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
#57 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 04:33:18 pm
Oh sweet yawning Jesus. As if you actually want to start arguments like that here. My science is better than your science. Blah blah google-fighting blah. Go eat a croissant.

What the fuck are you going on about?

I'm not saying any one science is better than another, because the scientific method is independent of the subject method/area in which it is applied.

The "bullshit" I referred to being common psychology is, and I'll write it again just to be crystal clear, the attempt to be quantitative in psychology which is an area that is better suited to qualitative methods.  I thought that reading the article would have made that clear too.

I did not state that this is greater in psychology compared to any other science (scroll back and check), thats a conclusion that you've drawn yourself and is wrong, so kindly don't try putting words into my mouth.

There is bullshit in other areas, I've just come out of a really boring talk where yet again people are arguing over the definition of a "Feasibility Study" v's "Pilot Study", a topic which I feel has far too much time, money, effort and hot air wasted on it.


I don't eat croissants, pain aux chocolates (or variants thereof) or own pink anasazis.

psychomansam

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1179
  • Karma: +66/-11
#58 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 04:59:08 pm
Oh sweet yawning Jesus. As if you actually want to start arguments like that here. My science is better than your science. Blah blah google-fighting blah. Go eat a croissant.

I did not state that this is greater in psychology compared to any other science (scroll back and check), thats a conclusion that you've drawn yourself and is wrong, so kindly don't try putting words into my mouth.

I don't eat croissants, pain aux chocolates (or variants thereof) or own pink anasazis.

I suggested you implied it, not that you stated it. I'm pleased to hear I was wrong as to your intention.

My last pair of pinks have just gone through. Ke garnu?

johnx2

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 353
  • Karma: +18/-0
#59 Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 05:34:39 pm
This is why I like philosophy

I find it of Foucault interest.




Boom boom  (shoots self)


Jaspersharpe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • 1B punter
  • Posts: 12344
  • Karma: +600/-20
  • Allez Oleeeve!
#60 Re: Re: SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 07:40:14 pm
Being a scientist and academic, I read the first couple of paragraphs, skipped to the end and forgot about it all.

That's how you do it though, isn't it.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#61 SCIENCE!!!
October 23, 2013, 09:08:30 pm
;)


Nibile

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 7991
  • Karma: +743/-4
  • Part Animal Part Machine
    • TOTOLORE
#63 Re: SCIENCE!!!
November 11, 2013, 08:26:16 pm
It's an Italian study...

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#64 SCIENCE!!!
November 11, 2013, 08:47:48 pm

Di Paola M, Caltagirone C, Petrosini L. Prolonged rock climbing activity induces structural changes in cerebellum and parietal lobe. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013 Oct;34(10):2707-14. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22095. Epub 2012 Apr 21.

Aarrrghh! Paywall!

Might dip into the piggy-bank though.

I've been pondering climbing as an avenue of occupational therapy for Dyspraxia (it can be dangerous when an engineer starts thinking).

I've been watching the development amongst a group of novices, who joined us about four months ago. In particular a couple of gangly, clumsy, Uncoordinated guys in their twenties. In the space of a few months, they have blossomed into quite graceful climbers.

By coincidence, I began to learn something about Dyspraxia at the same time. I'd heard of it but not realised how extensive it is in the population (close to 10%), neither had I considered that there would be a spectrum.

We started to meet parents with children dotted along the Autism spectrum, who had found positive development had grown out of exposure to rock climbing (particularly bouldering as it didn't involve restrictive harnessing).
(We're also bringing in a few groups with other learning difficulties and some young offenders; with great results).

In my rather linear, engineering type mind, I began to draw correlations between the two disorders.
And I also began to wonder, on a personal level, if I was seeing some improvement in someone close to me.

So, while I download the PDF and spend some time Googling swathes of terminology and then cross-ref to papers on Dyspraxia and brain morphology (though as yet there seems to be no clear evidence of distinctive brain architecture associated with the disorder, if I understand the abstracts I've already skimmed). Does anyone in the UKB massive have an insight/opinion?

There are a goodly number of Medics posting here.

Hint, hint...

Nibile

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 7991
  • Karma: +743/-4
  • Part Animal Part Machine
    • TOTOLORE
#65 Re: SCIENCE!!!
November 11, 2013, 09:33:29 pm
Jokes apart... A few years ago with our climbing club we tried to build a project with the city council. A friend of mine has a son with autism, and my friend noticed that his son was feeling better each time he'd come along with us to the wall and did some climbing. Unfortunately the project wasn't funded, but the doctors who were following my friend's son were quite enthusiastic about it.

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
#66 Re: SCIENCE!!!
November 12, 2013, 07:48:00 am

Di Paola M, Caltagirone C, Petrosini L. Prolonged rock climbing activity induces structural changes in cerebellum and parietal lobe. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013 Oct;34(10):2707-14. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22095. Epub 2012 Apr 21.

Aarrrghh! Paywall!

Might dip into the piggy-bank though.

Not always required.

A very useful approach when confronted with this situation is to stick the papers title into http://scholar.google.co.uk/ as it will often return a link to a non-paywalled version (in this case though the URL link itself is incorrect as it ends with the ".html" file extension, right-click and save it with a ".pdf" extensions then view it in your chosen PDF viewer).




johnx2

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 353
  • Karma: +18/-0
#67 Re: SCIENCE!!!
November 12, 2013, 10:35:30 am
Looks like another MRI fishing expedition. Take 10 climbers, give 'em a scan, compare to 10 normos, look at the brains, find differences, do some stats to say they're significant. Bingo. 

Just to look at the groups compared, the paper talks about 'rock climbing', but the climbers were 'A rare group of ten male world-class MC with previous high-level experience of climbing in the Alps, Himalayas and Andes', all having been doing this for over ten years. So not a bunch of guys who go down the wall.

Whether or not there are systematic differences between the groups which would also be found with other or larger groups of mountaineers, there is no way of knowing whether any differences would have arisen from one group having gone mountaineering for a decade or so. They might've been like that in the first place. Also as actual climbing is only part of what they do, it's a stretch to say that it's shaped their brains. You'd need to do an intervention study... 

@Oldmanmat - I'm not a real doctor and don't have professional liability insurance, so just slip your top off there's no point in suing me for typing bollocks. But anyway, I can see why an engineer might want to know the underlying mechanism for what happens, but does it really matter? If the kids benefit, then they benefit. It would be possible to do trials to find out how far they actually do benefit, which groups benefit most, and whether it's the actual  climbing (as opposed to fun group physical activity which requires concentration), that makes the difference. But anyway, better to start with 'is there an effect' , if that makes sense...


Muesli

Offline
  • **
  • addict
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +7/-0
#68 Re: SCIENCE!!!
November 12, 2013, 01:57:35 pm
Hmmm the  phrase


"The specific features of the motor climbing skills perfectly fit with the plastic anatomical changes we found."

In the abstract is a bit worrying...
Rarely do things fit perfectly in any practical study. 

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 29221
  • Karma: +630/-11
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix

psychomansam

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1179
  • Karma: +66/-11
#70 Re: SCIENCE!!!
November 13, 2013, 01:17:28 pm
From the above paper:
Similar to other studies, analyzing the relations between
brain structure and function [Hutchinson et al., 2003], we
are unable to determine whether the structural differences
we observed exist as a result of differences in function
(prolonged and unusual motor experience) or whether the
structural difference enabled the difference in function to
arise. In other words, we are unable to determine whether
a climber brain will produce an expert climber or whether
an expert climber will modify his brain in a climber brain.
Interestingly, animal studies demonstrate that differences
in experiences and behaviors lead to structural differences
of the brain in general, and of the cerebellum in particular.
Animals whom environment requires to learn new motor
skills, as opposed to execute mere motor activity, present
an increase in size and numbers of synapses per Purkinje
cell, in the cerebellar cortex [Black et al., 1990].

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
#71 Re: SCIENCE!!!
November 27, 2013, 05:14:08 pm

JamieG

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1278
  • Karma: +80/-0
#72 Re: SCIENCE!!!
December 03, 2013, 11:17:19 am
Cool video of a way to visualize gravity.




slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
#74 Re: SCIENCE!!!
December 18, 2013, 01:20:07 pm

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal