Timeline for Can cats survive a fall from any height?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 9, 2017 at 13:16 | comment | added | ctrl-alt-delor | So yes some will survive (if treated). However there is survivor bias in the data, so no conclusion can be made about safest hight. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 15:14 | history | edited | Brythan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Nov 10, 2016 at 16:41 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @whuber - having said that, I understand your comment about a "not proven" answer continuing to garner up-votes. | |
| Nov 10, 2016 at 16:20 | comment | added | whuber | @Andrew That sounds like a fair assessment. Thank you for the clarification. | |
| Nov 10, 2016 at 15:40 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @whuber - I'm not sure that your answer so much debunked this explanation as put it into the "not proven" category. Stating that there is a selection bias casts the conclusions into doubt, but that's not the same as, say "it's been shown that cats do dies from those falls." What you showed is that animal hospital numbers would normally not give any indication of cats surviving vs cats not. | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 14:15 | comment | added | Matas Vaitkevicius | to get accuracy 96.5% one needs at least 200 cats.... | |
| Jul 25, 2016 at 13:13 | comment | added | Kit Sunde | @whuber Your perceived fatal flaw. Without putting in the work it's opinion. But it's okay, I'm not going to continue this line of repeating the same thing. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the sites name is confusing to people, take it up in meta if you want but it has been like this forever and it will be futile. | |
| Jul 25, 2016 at 13:09 | comment | added | whuber | I have not conducted any "original research"! I have merely pointed out the fatal flaw in the authorities you and others are relying on to draw your conclusions. If the purpose of this site is merely to pit one authority against another, maybe it should be called something more accurate, such as "apologists," "references," or "received wisdom" :-). | |
| Jul 25, 2016 at 13:05 | comment | added | Kit Sunde | @whuber You misunderstand the nature of this site. I can't take your opinion on what studies have bias because the site doesn't allow original research, you have to actually find literature that convincingly has put in the work. It's not our jobs to dismiss studies and do original research, it's our job to give answers based on what's in the literature. Also if you want to talk skepticism then its a fallacy to conclude something is wholesale false because you think there is bias. It's not a binary notion. It's possible that bias can both skew the results and that there is evidence for it. | |
| Jul 25, 2016 at 12:55 | comment | added | whuber | Kit, the selection bias is not an assumption: it's a fact. The burden is on the researcher to use a valid protocol and demonstrate it was valid. Unless you can offer a study that has overcome that bias--I looked and was unable to find one--you have nothing to back up this "feline high rise" theory. Isn't that what scepticism is all about? Insisting that conclusions be based on solid evidence and sound reasoning? | |
| Jul 24, 2016 at 22:15 | comment | added | Kit Sunde | @whuber Apart from you assuming selection bias can completely explain away the survival rate, I don't see how that answer is saying anything different. It's a possibility but you don't have evidence beyond your own assertions. Saying "Thoroughly debunked" is a stretch don't you think? | |
| Jul 24, 2016 at 21:52 | comment | added | whuber | @Kit I did: see the answer I posted in 2015. | |
| Jul 24, 2016 at 21:47 | comment | added | Kit Sunde | @whuber Your comment lacks any substance, feel free to contribute some. | |
| Jul 24, 2016 at 21:46 | comment | added | whuber | It amazes me that an answer like this one, which has thoroughly been debunked, would continue to accumulate so many upvotes on a site that calls itself "skeptics." :-) I suspect this is an example of a myth that so many people want to be true that they overlook the fallacies used to support it. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 12:40 | comment | added | Taemyr | @raptortech97 That would increase the needed height before terminal velocity is reached. | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 15:00 | comment | added | raptortech97 | @FlipJohnson have you accounted for air friction? Cats slow their acceleration as they approach the terminal velocity, they don't just suddenly get affected by friction at 60 mph. | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 4:46 | comment | added | user22335 | Cats may indeed survive falls of over six stories with fewer injuries than those falling under six stories, but the science that people cite in their possible explanations is inaccurate. If a cat reaches terminal velocity of about 60 mph as stated in all sources, then by using the Acceleration constant g of 9.8 m/sec/sec, the cat will reach terminal velocity in 2.7 seconds or longer. That happens at a minimum of approximately 116 feet or 8 to 10 stories. This would tend to contradict the terminal velocity/relaxation theorists. | |
| May 25, 2011 at 22:46 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| May 23, 2011 at 22:31 | history | edited | Borror0 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| May 21, 2011 at 8:52 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| May 25, 2011 at 22:46 | |||||
| May 20, 2011 at 14:59 | comment | added | MrHen | So... the lesson is to put the cat in a bag before dropping it from a high-rise. Got it. | |
| May 20, 2011 at 10:06 | history | edited | Kit Sunde | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2011 at 10:01 | history | edited | Kit Sunde | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1000 characters in body; added 57 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2011 at 9:36 | history | edited | Kit Sunde | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 489 characters in body; added 61 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2011 at 9:28 | history | answered | Kit Sunde | CC BY-SA 3.0 |