Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Rate That Paradigm! (FFFNART)

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by Robertisaacs, Jan 23, 2010.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I'll be honest. I stole this from Simon. He invented an acronym for Formative framework For Not Accepting Rubbish Theories (FFFNART).

    So I tried to come up with that framework.

    So. Each model can be rated out of 5 stars for each element

    1. Passion of delivery (how desperately does the author want to be right)

    2. Level of over-defensiveness (How nasty do they get when challenged)

    3. Persistence (do they quit?)

    4. Exuberance of claims (How much do they claim to be able to treat)

    5. Inconsistency (Just how much do they contradict themselves)

    Average should give a score out of 5 for the Silliness of the model. In this way we should be able to objectively and systematically measure taurine excreta. But I'm open to suggestions on other / better criteria...
     
  2. So for example...

    Proprioceptive (butterworth model)

    I move that it scores...

    1. Passion of delivery (how desperately does the author want to be right)

    ***
    2. Level of over-defensiveness (How nasty do they get when challenged)
    ***
    3. Persistence (do they quit?)
    * (but in fairness its early days)

    4. Exuberance of claims (How much do they claim to be able to treat)

    *** (only one claim but WHAT a big one!!)

    5. Inconsistency (Just how much do they contradict themselves)


    *****

    Overall score

    ***
     
  3. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

  4. I only came up with an acronym, the rest was your work big boy.:drinks
     
  5. Ah well. You inspire ;)

    Notwithstanding the potential for humour there is a semi serious point here. There are certain characteristics one looks at when we look at a new model. Those of us who take an interest see many come and go, the good the bad and the ugly. For many, however the ONLY time they will hear of a model is at a spiffy presentation (where it will look great!).

    So what I'm really interested in is creating a "spotters guide to bull***t."

    For those who are not familiar with the stench, what are the characteristics?
     
  6. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Excellent collection. I had forgotten about a couple of them. There certainly are characteristics in common with how a number of the approaches are promoted.
     
  7. Graham

    Graham RIP

    I'm waiting for the "scratch & sniff" screen. Should be no problem then!:dizzy:
     
  8. It's all about religion.
     
  9. Simon I think I speak for everyone when I say that you need to cut back on the length of your posts! You ramble on, and on....;)

    Ok. Elucidate.

    Do you mean that religion is based on a series of a priori assumptions and pseudo-intellectual froth selectively accepted to surround and support the core belief which, if fallacious, will mean that by inference all of the supporting material will be likewise fallacious and that given the essentially heuristic basis of almost all belief wherein the way in which the mind works backward from conclusion to argument rendering the material of that argument inaccessible to scrutiny by the subject though obvious to the onlooker one creates a paradox in which nobody can objectively analyse their own conclusions... and that biomechanics IS THE SAME!?!?!?!

    Or what?

    Regards
    Robert
     
  10. Yeah, something like that. I think it was Daryl Philips who said something like we can only view the paradigm through its own lens.
     
  11. I also think that certain species survive because they have a large enough breeding pool and/ or too few predators.

    It's all about evolution.
    (and religion)
     
  12. Sorry, Robert, I find the above rating system too subjective for my taste.

    Here are the criteria that I use, and I think we should all use, when assessing such models:

    By using the above criteria, the validity and usefulness of any model of foot function can be assessed more objectively.
     
Loading...

Share This Page