Patrick Kittell..

[Booboos]

Of course I understand the difference between coincidence and causality. To suggest that all riders who wear red underwear produce winning horses because of it is likely to be coincidence as there is no reasonable connection between red underwear and performance. To suggest that a training system that produces winning horses does so because of the training system is causality because of the nature of the two things that are connected: a system for winning and a result of wins.

I never said that either all horses that are trained in rollkur will win, nor that only the horses that are trained in rollkur will win. Just that the success of some of the horses that are trained in this system is sufficient reason for anyone who wants to take up this system. The same holds for other successful systems.

 

[JFTDWS]

That might be enough evidence for you, booboos. For the rest of us who believe in scientific rigour and proof of causality (as opposed to supposition of causality on the strength of association), it simply will not do.

 

[Booboos]

I'm afraid I have to agree.To you the type of evidence depends on the question. To a scientist the type of evidence has to be the same for all questions. The study must contain a control group, the study will ideally be blinded, the result should be reproducible, data must be analysed to confirm any finding is significant, the reporter should report all results not cherry pick data.

We don't know if these horses win because of rollkur, despite rollkur, whether the use of rollkur relies on other things as well. We don't know how many horses trained with the technique don't win because we never hear of them, nor do we know how many horses break down and in a study involving animals it is very important to know the fate of all the animals that entered the programme, the study has no control group as comparison to other riders is no help due to complexity of the study and the number of variable factors.

I still don't understand the logic that one side may function on conjecture alone whilst the other must provide carefully collected evidence which is methodologically sound and directly related to the question in hand. Perhaps I am too much of scientist but I just do not see the logic here Told you I was no philosopher

What you cite as evidence is methodology (control groups, double blind) and checks on the methodology (whether results can be reproduced under similar conditions, whether all results have been correctly reported, absence of bias) not evidence. While the methodology of RTCs is appropriate for many scientific questions, it is not appropriate for all of them (e.g. consider an experiment on the origins of the universe, it is unlikely to need a control group).

I completely agree that we do not know for certain whether horses win because of rollkur or other methods of training. I suspect there is no one answer and that different methods work with different horses and different riders.

Because the two claims are different. The type of evidence required to ban a practice is different from that required for doing it purely on grounds of freedom. There are three types of evidence required here:
- to ban rollkur one needs evidence to show that it is harmful so as to defeat the presumption of freedom of the riders to do as they please with their horses.
- to defend rollkur one needs to point at the lack of evidence against it. This still leaves the point below undecided.
- to chose rollkur one needs evidence in favor of it. At this level there is some, possibly suspect, evidence of its success, but I am not seeking to convince anyone to take up rollkur, so I don't particularly care whether it works or not. Some people wave around carrot sticks, others go to animal communicators, that all sounds rubbish to me, but they are free to do so.

 

[camilla4]

Of
I never said that either all horses that are trained in rollkur will win, nor that only the horses that are trained in rollkur will win. QUOTE]

No - but you did say this: " If the question is "Is rollkur effective in producing winning horses?" then the success at international level of rollkur riders is appropriate proof" - I think that the latter posts have been maintaining that it is absolutely not proof!!!

 

[JFTDWS]

What you cite as evidence is methodology (control groups, double blind) and checks on the methodology (whether results can be reproduced under similar conditions, whether all results have been correctly reported, absence of bias) not evidence. While the methodology of RTCs is appropriate for many scientific questions, it is not appropriate for all of them (e.g. consider an experiment on the origins of the universe, it is unlikely to need a control group).

On a scientific point, I think it's important to realise and accept that the evidence is a product of the methodology - and to have good quality evidence, you need to have robust methodology.

The universe analogy is completely irrelevant to this form of research - if it were possible to model the start of the universe to investigate it, one would definitely require a control experiment for comparison. The fact that it is omitted due to impossibility in that instance has no relevance to its necessity in studies where it is possible.

 

[Jesstickle]

so what about fburtons question around zoophilia for example? Clearly the majority decided this wasn't ok and it is illegal in the UK. The animal can't be consenting by your own definitions (or rather by the ones you use which I'm sure are official ones), just like the horse in rollkur, and in many instances there will be no physical signs of harm, like in rollkur. So does that mean the law is wrong and people's freedoms mean they should be allowed to bugger their dog?

Where do you draw the line. What about people exposing themselves to children (god forbid). If to all intents and purpose the child seems fine is this also ok?

Surely this isn't the way our society functions? Rules and laws are put in place by those we choose to be in charge of such things and they use their judgement. Sometimes they also gather the best evidence which is available to them or they commission their own as well. Often the rules are influenced heavily by public opinion and actions. After all, isn't that the great thing about living in a reasonably democratic country?

The FEI are the rule makers, they either will or won't be influenced by public opinion. That is up to them really.They can choose to care about public opinion or they can choose to care about scientific evidence. I don't see why people shouldn't lobby them.

Perhaps I am missing something vital. I am waaay out of my depth on the philosophy side of things and it's very interesting.

 

[RuthM]

Booboo, you've produced a classic example of failing to understand Occam's law!

 

[BeesKnees]

Surely the point of philosophy is that that there isn't one absolute 'right' moral position, despite what Booboos seems to suggest.

Some believe in the 'might is right' argument and indeed our political system is based on that 'majority rules' idea. Our legal / ethical beliefs are not however. The majority in this country when polled say they believe in capital punishment. We haven't as yet brought back hanging however. In that case another philosophical position has taken precedence.

Others believe that it is the act itself that should be 'good', rather than just looking at the consequences of the act. So this is where the hedonistic ideal of 'I can do it if it doesnt hurt others' falls down. Most of us would agree that looking at and enjoying pedophilia or 'snuff' videos is an immoral and unethical act, even if you didn't take any part in the 'doing'. You can argue the viewer may not be responsible directly for the suffering caused, and thus has the right to enjoy it. As a society however we generally agree that to enjoy it is not something we can condone.

The point of my rambling is that you can find a philosophical argument to back up any moral position you wish to take! But at some point surely some common sense and ideas of common decency also have to apply?

 

[Fidgety]

2. Horses cannot consent. Consent has three requirements: rationality, information and choice. As such only rational adult humans can consent, and other groups, e.g. children, animals, the severely mentally disabled cannot consent. We (rational adults) make decisions on behalf of these groups sometimes based on their interests (mainly the case with children) sometimes based on a mix of our interests limited by welfare considerations (mainly the case with animals which we eat, use, work with, take pleasure from, etc.).

And the bits highlighted are precisely why it is down to us as riders, owners and bystanders to put the welfare of the horse first each and every time.

Sorry, but on point 4 I agree with everybody else on this subject. Anyway, hopefully time (ie the next 24hrs) will prove - without 'scientific study' as to just how successful 'at international level' rollkur is in producing winners.

There was a time when smoking was regarding as giving heath benefits...

 

[Jesstickle]

On a scientific point, I think it's important to realise and accept that the evidence is a product of the methodology - and to have good quality evidence, you need to have robust methodology.

That's what I meant really. To a scientist it isn't evidence if it wasn't produced with solid methodology. Ever. I think most scientists are pretty black and white on that one.

The conversations at my work are so hopeless. Someone will say did you see x in the paper and then instantly 10 people start asking questions about how the data was produced. Finally we'll convince ourselves that it is either probably a sound conclusion or that it isn't and then we'll start all over again with the next headline. Today it was something in the Independent about whether diesel cars work out better value in the end or not. There was a good 15 minute enquiry about how whatcar did the evaluation.

That or we talk about faeces. It's about a 50/50 split

 

[tallyho!]

Damn, I wish I could quote but new tablet mode will not let me!

I see where booboos is coming from... I think. I still disagree with her trying to defend something that trainers as far back as Xenophon have condemned the forceful nature of training horses and unnatural methods by using the lack of concrete evidence. To be fair, trying to get evidence would be cruel as people already know it will harm the subject horses. They only have horses who are already in training to work with. Not enough to significantly power a trial.

Rollkur produces something which looks as if it is correct. It is not as we can see the horse is disconnected and produces a false outline. The judges are awarding marks for this movement above correctly moving horses therefore perpetuating the need to use rollkur to achieve winning marks. As GG said much earlier it is the judges, the stewards, the system that is failing these horses. Change will come. It will not need a piece of paper with some graphic results for it to begin. It is already beginning.

 

[Booboos]

The universe analogy is completely irrelevant to this form of research - if it were possible to model the start of the universe to investigate it, one would definitely require a control experiment for comparison. The fact that it is omitted due to impossibility in that instance has no relevance to its necessity in studies where it is possible.

My understanding of this is very minimal but I think one of the aims of the Large Hadron Collider is to model the start of the universe!

jesstickle: bestiality (provided it's carried out with some welfare considerations) is harmless so according to the liberal position it should be decriminalised. There is no need for the animal to consent (as this is impossible), just not to be harmed and as animals engage in quite a lot of sex harmlessly it should be perfectly possible to do the same with humans...None of this means I wish to engage in bestiality!!! Exactly like rollkur I leave others to it!

Bees-Knees: no that is absolutely not the point of philosophy. There is a philosophical position called moral relativism which claims that in moral matters there is no right and wrong (in the same way in which there is no right and wrong in matters of taste; you can like Marmite, I can hate it and neither of us is objectively right or wrong, it's a matter of personal taste). However this position suffers from serious problems. Briefly if there is no moral right and wrong anything goes, so the murder of innocents is as right as devoting your life to charity; tolerance is impossible because the claim "tolerance should be promoted" is neither right or wrong; and finally global versions of relativism are self-defeating as the claim "relativism is true" is neither right nor wrong. Large number of philosophers (the majority?) are moral objectivists, i.e. they argue that there is such a thing as moral proof, but this is perfectly compatible with also thinking that the truth is very difficult to find and the best way to go about it is to encourage the exchange of ideas and debate.

I've been thinking about this overnight so here's another example about the connection between hypotheses and outcomes: Suppose I have the following two states of affairs:
A. My horse is tense, won't engage or move forward freely
B. My bum has a rash

then the following two events occur:

C. I change my saddle
D. I change my underwear to cotton only

then the following two events are observed:

E. My horse is less tense, moves forward more freely and is more willing to engage his back
F. My rash disappears

There is a rational connection between events A, C and E and between events B, D and F such that it is possible (via Occam's raisor, btw) to link these events causally. It is reasonable to assume a causal link in this way, although this assumption is not conclusive and it is defeasible.

However it is much more reasonable than assuming a connection this way:
My horse is tense, I change my knickers and my horse is less tense as a result OR
My bum has a rash, I change my saddle and my rash disappears.
(these connections are similar to the results of homeopathy, i.e. coincidental)

This connection is bordering on nonsensical:
My horse is tense, I change my saddle, my rash disappears
My bum has a rash, I change my knickers, my horse engages his back
(this reasoning is similar to the explanation of homeopathy, i.e. gobbledigook)

 

[camilla4]

There is a rational connection between events A, C and E and between events B, D and F such that it is possible (via Occam's raisor, btw) to link these events causally. It is reasonable to assume a causal link in this way, although this assumption is not conclusive and it is defeasible.

However it is much more reasonable than assuming a connection this way:
My horse is tense, I change my knickers and my horse is less tense as a result OR
My bum has a rash, I change my saddle and my rash disappears.
(these connections are similar to the results of homeopathy, i.e. coincidental)

This connection is bordering on nonsensical:
My horse is tense, I change my saddle, my rash disappears
My bum has a rash, I change my knickers, my horse engages his back
(this reasoning is similar to the explanation of homeopathy, i.e. gobbledigook)

I absolutely agree with this, Booboos, but a rational connection is not the same as proof. It merely allows the formation of a hypothesis which can then be tested.

 

[JFTDWS]

Re the lhc, not my field but as far as I am aware their experiments do not (cannot) 'model' the start of the universe - whatever the press might claim. Their experiments inform physical and mathematical models (as in abstract descriptions based on maths and physical principles) of the start of the universe.

The idea of modelling in the conext discussed previously is that it is a direct and literal model of an event occurring - e.g. Causative agent 'a' causes condition 'b'.

 

[-Sj-]

For all reader unsure of what rollkur is, here is a videa of Patrik Kittel warming up...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hIXGiV4N4k

Urgh

 

[tallyho!]

The dressage horses haven't been very connected or through this morning.... very on the forehand, no self-carriage. I wonder why....? Don't horses need their necks to balance?

 

[JFTDWS]

 

[misterjinglejay]

Love it - very clever

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Very funny !

Was just wondering if someone is videoing PK warming up this morning? Perhaps the stewards will be more sharp eyed in trying to protect PK's privacy from filming.
The BBC and olympic organisers seem to be doing a good job in ignoring the furore about the abuse.

 

[Pale Rider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5oh4cjkLZk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Jesstickle]

jesstickle: bestiality (provided it's carried out with some welfare considerations) is harmless so according to the liberal position it should be decriminalised. There is no need for the animal to consent (as this is impossible), just not to be harmed and as animals engage in quite a lot of sex harmlessly it should be perfectly possible to do the same with humans...None of this means I wish to engage in bestiality!!! Exactly like rollkur I leave others to it!

Thanks for that What other positions can you take? Obviously you can be liberal, what would the others be called? It's interesting stuff this philosophy malarky

 

[JFTDWS]

It was at this point, Jess, I realised that booboos opinion is so wildly different from mine because I'm not a liberal

Not 100% sure what I am, but I am no liberal

 

[Marydoll]

This is great

 

[Vizslak]

Thanks for that What other positions can you take?

Sorry, I am a child.......but........ROFPMSL!

 

[tallyho!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5oh4cjkLZk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

thanks PR!

 

[BeesKnees]

jesstickle: bestiality (provided it's carried out with some welfare considerations) is harmless so according to the liberal position it should be decriminalised. There is no need for the animal to consent (as this is impossible), just not to be harmed and as animals engage in quite a lot of sex harmlessly it should be perfectly possible to do the same with humans...None of this means I wish to engage in bestiality!!! Exactly like rollkur I leave others to it!

But there aren't you taking a point of moral relativism??

I think you misunderstood my post (it was rambly!) I'm not am exponent of moral relativism at all. My point was that there are different positions regarding morality within philosophy i.e utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology........I know very little about it, but was merely pointing out that you appeared to be suggesting there was one way to look at right and wrong - by ascertaining if any harm has been done and if consent has been given. But this seems a rather over-simplistic explanation?

I may just be misunderstanding the whole thing

 

[BeesKnees]

To get back to Rollkur specifically......

Whilst we may argue about whether you can prove it is harmful or not, I would like to be given some hard evidence, or even at least some bio-mechanically convincing argument, as to HOW exactly hyperflexion is beneficial? HOW does it get a horse to bring it's hocks underneath it, as is suggested by those who defend the practice?

My understanding is that the practice of putting a horse's head in a hyper-flexed position first became noticed around the time when Nicole Uphoff was riding Rembrandt??

As far as I reacall the reasoning for it was two-fold:
1. Rembrandt was very hot and would explode easily, and so the flexed position was a method of control (which kind of argue against proponents saying it isn't used to dominate the horse....)
2. The flexed position put the horse on the forehand, and it was reasoned that by using this in the warm-up, once you brought the horse's head up just before coming into the ring, by magic the weight would transfer to the back end during the actual test.

So the argument was very much that it WAS about putting a horse on its forehand (even if the logic was a bit suspect).

Yet now, proponents argue it puts the horse on its hocks with the back tucking under???

So which is it? And where is the evidence?

 

[tallyho!]

PK just got third.... Come on Carl Hester!!!! Blow him out of the water!!!

 

[Vizslak]

it was a far better test than he has shown here on previous days, I still maintain the horse is woefully weak behind. I do wonder if the fact he darent, after all the publicity, work the horse in Rollkur in warm ups and training this week has infact improved the horses way of going today. An unscientific assumption of course...but in my eyes entirely possible.

 

[Jesstickle]

Sorry, I am a child.......but........ROFPMSL!

How rude