Why is anyone surprised by 57:xx in the half?

Chances/probabilities, such as discussed earlier, e.g. here:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7610954

casual obsever wrote:

Chances/probabilities, such as discussed earlier, e.g. here:

Even chance and probability have a solid, logical, basis in mathematics, but it also requires data -- something Armstronglivs said we don't have, which includes Ross Tucker.

Tucker's numbers are educated estimates based on his observations, not calculated facts. No one said they were facts.

As you can see in that thread, others would judge the chances of the discussed athletes differently.

You miss the point. You - we - cannot create a watertight argument - one that is indubitably true - without all the necessary facts. Logic applied to incomplete information creates a false certainty. But with enough information it is possible to make useful estimates based on probability - as we do all the time in everyday life. But apparently you don't.

casual obsever wrote:

Tucker's numbers are educated estimates based on his observations, not calculated facts. No one said they were facts.

As you can see in that thread, others would judge the chances of the discussed athletes differently.

Are they educated estimates? I didn't see any explanation for his scale of suspicion.

In any case, it is an outsider's opinion based on limited observations.

casual obsever wrote:

Tucker's numbers are educated estimates based on his observations, not calculated facts. No one said they were facts.

As you can see in that thread, others would judge the chances of the discussed athletes differently.

Some here rule out "educated estimates". They prefer uneducated certainty. Supported by logic.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You miss the point. You - we - cannot create a watertight argument - one that is indubitably true - without all the necessary facts. Logic applied to incomplete information creates a false certainty. But with enough information it is possible to make useful estimates based on probability - as we do all the time in everyday life. But apparently you don't.

I did not introduce the rigid standard of logic into this discussion.

I only asked for the best examples of good logic.

It would seem that you and casual are in agreement with me that this doesn't really exist.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Tucker's numbers are educated estimates based on his observations, not calculated facts. No one said they were facts.

As you can see in that thread, others would judge the chances of the discussed athletes differently.

Are they educated estimates? I didn't see any explanation for his scale of suspicion.

In any case, it is an outsider's opinion based on limited observations.

The only description of basis for his scale of suspicion I could find was in a tweet:

"Based on the set of other factors around the athletes. Remember, performance is not not (sic) guilt"

Ross correctly reminds us that "performance is not guilt". He is looking at other factors, like associations and investigations.

Armstronglivs wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Tucker's numbers are educated estimates based on his observations, not calculated facts. No one said they were facts.

As you can see in that thread, others would judge the chances of the discussed athletes differently.

Some here rule out "educated estimates". They prefer uneducated certainty. Supported by logic.

To the extent you are saying this, I think we are in agreement then that Tucker's scale is not a logical scale based on a sufficient number of observations and facts.

I just find it odd that, if good examples do exist, a discussion that started out asking for some "among the best" examples of "good logic" has wandered its way to a scale based on personal intuition and unstated criteria and limited observations and not calculated facts.

"casual obsever" did call them "educated estimates", but rather than taking "casual obsever's" own conclusions for granted, this only raises the question whether Tucker's scale of suspicion can be rightfully called "educated estimates".

If I understand you right, you are saying we have to choose between the dichotomy of "educated illogic" and "uneducated logic"? Given the choice, I prefer "educated logic", but I never present these false dichotomies -- I simply call this "illogic" by other names, like faith, fallacy, mythology, doping worshipping, etc.

As you have argued earlier, like you and me and "casual obsever", Ross Tucker's observations are also too limited. There are gaps in his observations that he fills in with his own personal unstated assumptions. Recall my introduction to logic earlier:

"An assumption ... is the unstated link somewhere in the chain of evidence and conclusion. Finding the assumption means, basically, finding that gap in the argument and filling it."

You mistakenly said earlier that logic without facts "can lead to falsehood". This is not quite true. Logic is neutral and consistent, preserving the truthfulness of the givens (assumptions and facts). Only false assumptions can lead to false conclusions. This is the danger of logical fallacies, as it can negate the truthfulness of the assumptions, arriving at inconsistent, false conclusions.

rekrunner wrote:

It would seem that you and casual are in agreement with me that this doesn't really exist.

No. You are also wrong with that there isn't "any explanation for his scale of suspicion".

You are confusing logic with proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

For example, going back to the beginning of this discussion, it is logical to strongly suspect Komen of doping, but it is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he doped.

In other examples, we know that Baumann/Decker/Kiprop/Schwazer were dopers, proven beyond any reasonable doubt in "court". When some propaganda shills / Salazar fans / trolls continue to pretend otherwise, e.g. by alternatingly blaming birth control pills and menopause, they just display their lack of logic.

You mistakenly said earlier that logic without facts "can lead to falsehood". This is not quite true. Logic is neutral and consistent, preserving the truthfulness of the givens (assumptions and facts). Only false assumptions can lead to false conclusions. This is the danger of logical fallacies, as it can negate the truthfulness of the assumptions, arriving at inconsistent, false conclusions.[/quote]

That isn't correct. It isn't only false assumptions that lead to false conclusions - even if the logic is correct. The premises have to be correct for the conclusions to be sound or "true". A false premise can render a conclusion unsound even though the argument is valid logically. This is basic. It can also render an argument unsound and untrue if it fails to include facts that would change the argument. Logic will resolve an argument that is closed i.e. dictated by given premises. It will not resolve an argument that requires assessing and weighing a range of competing and even contradictory facts. That is what reality typically comes down to; the world is rarely black and white and its truths able to be determined by logic alone. Hence we largely form views based on what the facts tell us is probable or likely, or not probable, and also what we can dismiss as unlikely or even impossible. Logic may help to understand but not necessarily decide the issue at hand.

I can't be wrong about that, as I did not say there wasn't any explanation. Here's what I really said:

"I didn't see any explanation for his scale of suspicion." and later, after a quick search:

"The only description of basis for his scale of suspicion I could find was in a tweet:

"Based on the set of other factors around the athletes. Remember, performance is not not (sic) guilt""

I did not talk about proof beyond reasonable doubt. I asked for some of the best examples of good logic. Apparently Ross Tucker's "scale of suspicion" is your proposal of some of the best logic surrounding doping in sport.

All this talk about "suspicion" is a different goalpost.

The beginning of the discussion was not "strongly suspect". Subway Surfer said: "There's no way Komen wasn't sauced to the gills."

I don't find "suspicion" particularly interesting -- being "suspicios" is a low intellectual bar requiring no special knowledge:

Suspicion: "a feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true."

I'm not interested in feelings or thoughts about what is possible.

Now it is you confusing "logic" with "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

The level required in doping cases is "comfortable satisfaction" of the expert or arbitration panel. The higher standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is required in criminal convictions.

The application of logic is truth neutral. If you arrive at a false conclusion, it is not because of logic, but because of the initial conditions, or the incompleteness of the system, or by applying non-logical steps.

Not sure what the difference is between "false assumption" and "false premise", but OK, if you feel it adds to the discussion to introduce another term, a false premise can also lead to a false conclusion.

You are also correct that you can arrive at false conclusions if you fail to include contradictory facts. The conclusion would be consistent in the limited, incomplete system, but would be rejected in a larger system that includes contradictory facts.

If you start substituting or supplementing logic with some common logical fallacies, you can start with valid assumptions, premises, evidence, givens, etc., and arrive at false conclusions.

You speak of what facts tell us is probable or likely, but without any real measurements, the probability and likelihood are purely subjective.

Many factors are at play with these fast times. But the biggest one is widespread doping. Too much easy money to be had. I have to laugh at the 10 paragraph dissertations defending these times. People are going to believe what they want to believe.

Barcelona Dumpster wrote:

Many factors are at play with these fast times. But the biggest one is widespread doping. Too much easy money to be had. I have to laugh at the 10 paragraph dissertations defending these times. People are going to believe what they want to believe.

Yes -- people will believe what they want to believe, because it is more like a religion rather than an application of good logic.

If the biggest factor explaining fast times was widespread doping, we should be able to link the widespread doping with widespread fast times.

rekrunner wrote:

I can't be wrong about that, as I did not say there wasn't any explanation. Here's what I really said:

"I didn't see any explanation for his scale of suspicion."

I see. So when you said that you "didn't see...", it was because you didn't look.

But then, why would you say that you "didn't see..."? Just trolling, or to again needlessly throw shades at yet another scientist?

rekrunner wrote:

If the biggest factor explaining fast times was widespread doping, we should be able to link the widespread doping with widespread fast times.

Who cares if it is the biggest factor? You must be one of those morons who would have stood by Lance Armstrong as there was no link between his 7 Tour de France titles and doping. You really haven’t learned to think critically. The biggest factor in athletic success in endurance sports is hard work, and genetics is likely a close 2nd. Of course doping is not the biggest factor but it is significant nonetheless.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I can't be wrong about that, as I did not say there wasn't any explanation. Here's what I really said:

"I didn't see any explanation for his scale of suspicion."

I see. So when you said that you "didn't see...", it was because you didn't look.

But then, why would you say that you "didn't see..."? Just trolling, or to again needlessly throw shades at yet another scientist?

I looked in the link you provided, but not all 157 posts.

And then I looked for any suggestion of "chance/probality", which was your claim the link was supposed to support.

If there was some specific message for me in your link, you have to be more specific.

Later, I also looked at his twitter feed.

Even with these descriptions, it is generous to say "chance/probabiity" for what is effectively his own subjective opinion -- and then it is an index of suspicion, which is something much less substantive than the "original goalpost".

I don't "throw shade" at scientists, but look at what they say and try to assess what the basis for that is.

Focusing on the people, rather than the content risks committing another logical fallacy -- appeal to authority.

XXXX wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If the biggest factor explaining fast times was widespread doping, we should be able to link the widespread doping with widespread fast times.

Who cares if it is the biggest factor? You must be one of those morons who would have stood by Lance Armstrong as there was no link between his 7 Tour de France titles and doping. You really haven’t learned to think critically. The biggest factor in athletic success in endurance sports is hard work, and genetics is likely a close 2nd. Of course doping is not the biggest factor but it is significant nonetheless.

Apparently "Barcelona Dumpster" cares. It was his claim.

Appealing to Lance is becoming something on par with Godwin's law.

As you doubt my thoughts on Lance, for clarity, during Lance's Tour de France win's I didn't follow cycling all that closely, nor did I follow doping all that closely. Once the evidence started coming out against Lance, starting with the articles in L'Equipe, and books by David Walsh and other investigative reporting, and testimonies from teammates, employees, etc., etc., etc., I formed a firm opinion based on the evidence. Even then, I rarely expressed doubts the relation between doping and cycling performance (more for lack of interest in cycling), but lately, there has been new evidence, at least two meta-studies, which challenge the benefit of EPO and blood doping in elite cycling in grand tours, with both studies concluding the effect is over-estimated.