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

rekrunner wrote:

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

LOL, what?

Quick reminder:

rekrunner wrote:

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

I literally lol'ed.

And you routinely don't "try to assess what the basis for that is", instead you try to argue that the scientists, including their peer-reviewed work, are wrong. LOL

Troll somebody else. Maybe play some more with the other Covid deniers?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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

LOL, what?

Quick reminder:

rekrunner wrote:

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

I literally lol'ed.

And you routinely don't "try to assess what the basis for that is", instead you try to argue that the scientists, including their peer-reviewed work, are wrong. LOL

Troll somebody else. Maybe play some more with the other Covid deniers?

Don't know why you LOL and literally lol'd. And I continue to see you resorting to "troll" as your way of giving up and walking away from an argument you lost.

I looked at what Ross said, i.e. "PROF ROSS TUCKER ("Sports Scientist") tweets his DOPING SCALE (ZA): Wayde van Niekerk 5, Farah 9.5, RUPP 10".

Then I looked for his basis, in order to try to assess it, in order to make sense of what his personal scale means to him. At first I didn't find anything, but I eventually found something in a tweet.

This is all recorded history, and you can look back and see that it played out just like I described.

To respond specifically about scientists, depends on the scientist in question, and what they said, but I generally don't argue that scientists are wrong, but rather one or more of the following, just to name a few:

- your interpretation of what the scientist said or wrote is wrong

- the scientist failed to respect certain scientific standards, contaminating observations and undermining any conclusion

- the scientist credentialed in one domain lacks expertise to make claims or predictions outside of his domain of expertise

- the scientist makes claims without any representative observation

- sometimes scientists say right things in peer-reviewed work, but then contradict themselves in non-peer reviewed public statements

- sometimes scientists or experts do say wrong things, not according to me, but according to other scientists or experts

In short, to reiterate, this determination is made by looking at what they say and trying to assess what the basis for that is, rather than blindly accepting statements from someone because of their credentials.