rekrunner wrote:
On the contrary, when asked to take a position, I have only ever argued "Maybe, maybe not. Need more data."
.
And you will adhere to that forever and just keep moving the data goalposts.
rekrunner wrote:
On the contrary, when asked to take a position, I have only ever argued "Maybe, maybe not. Need more data."
.
And you will adhere to that forever and just keep moving the data goalposts.
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
Okay then...what about the recent four Kenyans busted for ABP hematological-anomalies violations? ...
Do you really need me to say again that someone believed a world record holder should dope?
Here's how I interpret cherry picked examples.
Let's say doping prevalence is 20%. In a hypothetical scenario where doping has no effect, I would predict 20% of world records are doped. If it is 40%, then 40%
If you want to show me anything by example, I will start to be interested only after you can show me that doping busts ratio among record holders is higher than the global average.
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
On the contrary, when asked to take a position, I have only ever argued "Maybe, maybe not. Need more data."
.
And you will adhere to that forever and just keep moving the data goalposts.
Without data, I will call it belief. That is the goalpost.
really?? Really?? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I agree that that claim is still open for discussion.
Discussion is really pointless, since you do not agree with your opponents about standards of evidence.
It is just people sticking their fingers in their ears yelling, "I'm right, you are wrong"
Unproductive and boring.
It will be pointless if you lack the data to back up your ideas.
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Now who's WAG-ging it?
You can work out the math from 3:39 to 3:29 then.
Are you suggesting that 3:39 is a reasonable estimate for his potential from clean training?
Here is where a detailed discussion of confounders are necessary.
rekrunner wrote:
really?? Really?? wrote:
Discussion is really pointless, since you do not agree with your opponents about standards of evidence.
It is just people sticking their fingers in their ears yelling, "I'm right, you are wrong"
Unproductive and boring.
It will be pointless if you lack the data to back up your ideas.
You also lack the data to back up your ideas.
As I said, unproductive and boring.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
You can work out the math from 3:39 to 3:29 then.
Are you suggesting that 3:39 is a reasonable estimate for his potential from clean training?
Here is where a detailed discussion of confounders are necessary.
Which is all entirely speculation.
The clean time to doped time is actual data.
The counter-factual is unprovable.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
You can work out the math from 3:39 to 3:29 then.
Are you suggesting that 3:39 is a reasonable estimate for his potential from clean training?
Here is where a detailed discussion of confounders are necessary.
Confounders are unlimited. Your stance of maybe, maybe not will never change. You can always just postulate that training was not maximized or optimal, sleep was not consistent, enough ugali was not consumed, potatoes were more difficult to plant etc. Ramadan kept on popping up etc.
No amount of data will replace the fact that you have dug in your heels too much to ever commit to anything but maybe, maybe not.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
And you will adhere to that forever and just keep moving the data goalposts.
Without data, I will call it belief. That is the goalpost.
No - the goalpost is what you choose to define as data. If it doesn't suit your argument, it isn't "data" - even if it has a factual basis. Court cases depend on a evidence but with your view of what constitutes evidence, no case could ever be proven. You render inadmissable what you don't like, by calling it "belief". There is method to this. By making the evidentiary bar impossibly high, no argument claiming doping can ever be proven or even be considered persuasive - and so your partialities can remain intact.
I'd like Gary to list all his confounders which would need to be examined before attributing gains to drugs.
I would think even his volume of trolling on here would not even begin to touch that.
really?? Really?? wrote:
Unproductive and boring.
It will be pointless if you lack the data to back up your ideas.[/quote]
You also lack the data to back up your ideas.
As I said, unproductive and boring.[/quote]
Which ideas?
What data do you think I need to support my idea that you haven't backed up your ideas?
I have plenty of ideas backed up by performance analyses I did on historical all time best performances.
I also have some ideas backed up by a couple of meta-studies which themselves did a critical and statistical evaluation of the best EPO studies they could find.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No - the goalpost is what you choose to define as data. If it doesn't suit your argument, it isn't "data" - even if it has a factual basis. Court cases depend on a evidence but with your view of what constitutes evidence, no case could ever be proven. You render inadmissable what you don't like, by calling it "belief". There is method to this. By making the evidentiary bar impossibly high, no argument claiming doping can ever be proven or even be considered persuasive - and so your partialities can remain intact.
What I find unpersuasive is faith and fallacy. This is not unusual criteria for an important subject like doping which can ruin a career for life.
I only call it belief, when it is unsubstantiated. If you like you can replace it with many other synonyms if you find that more palatable: unsupported hypothesis, allegation, speculation, etc.
I suppose you could say the standard is high, but my standard is not the one used to gossip with your friends in a bar, but the one used in academics that require substance and logic and controlled observations.
really?? Really?? wrote:
Which is all entirely speculation.
The clean time to doped time is actual data.
The counter-factual is unprovable.
This helps explain why cherry picked examples are one of the weakest forms of proof.
If you want to show something by example, it requires a forensic analysis of all the factors.
That is hard to do, but without it, it is highly unconvincing.
physics defiant wrote:
I'd like Gary to list all his confounders which would need to be examined before attributing gains to drugs.
I would think even his volume of trolling on here would not even begin to touch that.
i would like gary to shut up and leave these boards permanently....but i think there is a higher percentage that epstien is still alive than that happening...and what percentage you ask? 4% obviously
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No - the goalpost is what you choose to define as data. If it doesn't suit your argument, it isn't "data" - even if it has a factual basis. Court cases depend on a evidence but with your view of what constitutes evidence, no case could ever be proven. You render inadmissable what you don't like, by calling it "belief". There is method to this. By making the evidentiary bar impossibly high, no argument claiming doping can ever be proven or even be considered persuasive - and so your partialities can remain intact.
What I find unpersuasive is faith and fallacy. This is not unusual criteria for an important subject like doping which can ruin a career for life.
I only call it belief, when it is unsubstantiated. If you like you can replace it with many other synonyms if you find that more palatable: unsupported hypothesis, allegation, speculation, etc.
I suppose you could say the standard is high, but my standard is not the one used to gossip with your friends in a bar, but the one used in academics that require substance and logic and controlled observations.
But not the standard used in a courtroom, which includes circumstantial evidence, evidence of character and witness credibility, and where expert evidence by academics and such like routinely differs and rarely resolves the issue. The truth does not reside in the halls of academia alone, as much as you are disposed to think that. The one thing you can depend on from academics is is that uniformity of viewpoint amongst them is a virtual impossibility. And you choose to rely on their views alone - or more accurately, the views of those who match yours. How convenient for you.
The standard of proof required in a courtroom- and which is relevant to any inquiry into truth - is that resulting from a consideration of the "totality of the evidence" - not evidence of one kind alone, like expert or academic testimony. Considering the totality of the evidence is what you don't do, because you effectively rule out as evidence anything that doesn't conform to your narrow criteria. Your use of evidence - which you call "data" - is limited and selective. It is insufficient to resolve the issue. That is why no one can ever build a case to satisfy you - and why you are also unable to construct a case. But you can't consider the totality of the evidence because that would require an open mind. And evidence for you is only what you allow to be called evidence, and changes as your arguments shift. The only thing you succeed at is making all argument with you futile.
Can someone tell me on which page the discussion ends and Rekrunner takes over?
Armstronglivs wrote:
But not the standard used in a courtroom, ...
You don't meet this standard either.
I have considered all the totality of my evidence and the totality of your evidence.
I have rejected none of the evidence.
I have only rejected non-expert hypotheses and conclusions.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But not the standard used in a courtroom, ...
You don't meet this standard either.
I have considered all the totality of my evidence and the totality of your evidence.
I have rejected none of the evidence.
I have only rejected non-expert hypotheses and conclusions.
You have rejected "none of the evidence"? You reject any evidence supplied by anyone else, including the evidence from experts supplied by other commenters.
If you are rejecting "non-expert hypotheses" then you also need reject your own. You are not an expert.
You further show you do not understand what the "totality of the evidence" means; it is not possessed by one person or source alone - it is not yours or mine, or anyone's. It is anything that could be considered relevant. It could also conflict with other evidence.
The Stablemaster wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you, lad. But if you're about, I'd be more than happy to meet you...
I’ll pass, thanks. Otherwise engaged, trapped in a country that’s completely freaking out over the Coronavirus. A real dystopian hellscape.