A
Afrodite
Sv: Frågor och seriösa diskussioner ang barfotametoder samt hovproblem i allmänhet.
Ja jag stödjer mig på teorier som många gånger bevisats vara korrekta i verkligheten. Teorier som är prövade under mer än 20 års tid.
Här är några citat från professor Robert Cook, han arbetar på ett universitet som utbildar veterinärer i Tuft, USA. Det är utdrag ur ett öppet brev till samtliga veterinärer världen.
"......./ However, as Ernst Mach observed in 1897, "no one disturbs his fellow men with a new view unpunished." Judging by the lack of citations of Strasser’s work in podiatric papers it would appear that the veterinary profession, by and large, has not noticed her contributions. Nevertheless, this very paucity of comment actually tells us something important. Had her revolutionary findings been falsifiable, there is little doubt that one or more authors would by now have published a refutation. Yet no such publication has appeared. An inability to falsify a hypothesis constitutes powerful evidence in favor of its validity."
"...../ A good hypothesis is a bold hypothesis, as the bolder it is the more vulnerable to falsification. Strasser’s hypothesis that shoes are harmful to the health of the horse is, undeniably, a bold hypothesis. She has had the courage to question 1000 years of accepted methodology and put forward a better alternative. Furthermore, as a scientist with integrity, having advanced such a scandalous idea, she has been the first to try and invalidate it. With this in mind, she has tested the hypothesis on many types of horses, over a long period of years, and under a wide variety of conditions. The hypothesis has withstood her own attempts to falsify it, for the results have satisfied not only her but also countless numbers of horse owners. In accordance with the rules of science she has also taken pains to publish the protocols of her experiment and even to train others, so that they can repeat the experiment and test it for themselves. Once again, when others carry out the experiment based on her hypothesis it withstands the acid test of repeatability, as similar results can be achieved."
Veterinär R Zierold visade i sin avhandling att lamelläderhuden hos skodda hästar var betydligt mer skadad än hos oskodda hästar. Det finns fler forskning inom området.
Om du fortsättningsvis är intresserad av källor till mina inlägg får jag be dig se i dr Strassers böcker. Bland annat i "The hoofcare specialist handbook" finns 3 1/2 sidor med referenser. Jag tror säkert att du finner något av det du söker där.
Britt-Marie
SHP
hovis skrev:Jag tolkar det som att du beskriver DIN syn till grundorsakerna. För att du på ett korrekt sätt här skall beskriva dom exakta grundorsakerna som du så bestämt hänvisar till så måste du delge källa,forskning som stödjer dina påstpåenden. Kan du inte det utan stödjer dig enbart på teorier vilket du gör då ngn exakt grundorsak utifrån fång avseende forskning ej finns att tillgå utan ju mer forskning som bedrivs inom detta område ju större blir okunskapen om grundorsakerna.
Jag har läst ditt tidigare inlägg men det är som sagt bara din egen teori och saknar helt fakta utifrån all för dagen erkänd forskning, inte ens Dr. Strasser själv kan delge ngn forskning som hänvisar till påståendena.
Därav förstår jag mkt väl frågan i från tain.
Ja jag stödjer mig på teorier som många gånger bevisats vara korrekta i verkligheten. Teorier som är prövade under mer än 20 års tid.
Här är några citat från professor Robert Cook, han arbetar på ett universitet som utbildar veterinärer i Tuft, USA. Det är utdrag ur ett öppet brev till samtliga veterinärer världen.
"......./ However, as Ernst Mach observed in 1897, "no one disturbs his fellow men with a new view unpunished." Judging by the lack of citations of Strasser’s work in podiatric papers it would appear that the veterinary profession, by and large, has not noticed her contributions. Nevertheless, this very paucity of comment actually tells us something important. Had her revolutionary findings been falsifiable, there is little doubt that one or more authors would by now have published a refutation. Yet no such publication has appeared. An inability to falsify a hypothesis constitutes powerful evidence in favor of its validity."
"...../ A good hypothesis is a bold hypothesis, as the bolder it is the more vulnerable to falsification. Strasser’s hypothesis that shoes are harmful to the health of the horse is, undeniably, a bold hypothesis. She has had the courage to question 1000 years of accepted methodology and put forward a better alternative. Furthermore, as a scientist with integrity, having advanced such a scandalous idea, she has been the first to try and invalidate it. With this in mind, she has tested the hypothesis on many types of horses, over a long period of years, and under a wide variety of conditions. The hypothesis has withstood her own attempts to falsify it, for the results have satisfied not only her but also countless numbers of horse owners. In accordance with the rules of science she has also taken pains to publish the protocols of her experiment and even to train others, so that they can repeat the experiment and test it for themselves. Once again, when others carry out the experiment based on her hypothesis it withstands the acid test of repeatability, as similar results can be achieved."
Veterinär R Zierold visade i sin avhandling att lamelläderhuden hos skodda hästar var betydligt mer skadad än hos oskodda hästar. Det finns fler forskning inom området.
Om du fortsättningsvis är intresserad av källor till mina inlägg får jag be dig se i dr Strassers böcker. Bland annat i "The hoofcare specialist handbook" finns 3 1/2 sidor med referenser. Jag tror säkert att du finner något av det du söker där.
Britt-Marie
SHP