[sumo] [spoilers]Takanohana and steroid abuse

Jezz jejima at gmail.com
Tue Dec 11 00:27:46 EST 2007


On 11/12/2007, Scott M. Kahn <smk1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
> Well, I won't debate your ridiculous opinion regarding my knowledge
> of steroids in baseball because it is silly.

I don't think opinions are open to debate, whether or not they are
silly.  You can try to change someone's opinion, however.  The best
way to do this is to demonstrate exactly the opposite of what they are
claiming.

> Had you read the
> aforementioned research article,

I believe that Joshua has read the aforementioned article.  I will
support this claim with a quote that I found in his email.

<quote> Yes, I am familiar with it, <unquote>

> the question of steroid effect on
> pitch velocity was addressed.
> I take it that you don't understand
> the model and the statistics, otherwise you would delve into
> specifics about what part of the mathematical model you disagree
> with,

In my opinion Joshua does understand the model sufficiently enough to
question its viability.  I will use a quote from his email to support
this claim.

<quote> He assumes that muscle mass increases the power
with which a baseball can be hit, which is questionable to say the least,
and he bases his research on mathematical models -- not on reality.<unquote>

> instead of making blanket statements that hint of ignorance.

Please present the blanket statement or statements so that it can be
tested for hints of ignorance.

> Humidors, indeed, make a convenient excuse for not having to
> understand the models.

I do not understand what a humidor, but from what Joshua posted, it
would appear that humidors have been tested in reality.  Therefore
there is factual proof - not just theorectical proof.  Of course this
does not rule out other effects.  To understand a model, one does not
have to agree with it.

> I am less than impressed at your reliance
> on statistics from studies that obviously lacked the power to tease
> out anomolies that could be attributed to steroid abuse.

I was impressed at the amount of time Joshua had taken to do some
research and provide us with actual numbers and data to support his
arguments.

> I find you
> very ignorant of the scientific process,

Scientific process is to postulate a hypothesis and then to test the
hypothesis. It does not stop at the postulating stage.

> covered up by your need to
> attack, perhaps because it would be embarassing for you to debate
> issues and admit your ignorance.

The only 'attack' that I could find in Joshua's latest email is this....

<quote> Regardless, you're ill informed about baseball and steroids,
and it makes
your accusations on people from another sport questionable at best, and most
certainly unethical in my opinion. <unquote>

I note the 'in my opinion' at the end of this paragraph.  Moreover it
would appear that he has been debating the topic, without any
embarrassment. I think he has clearly showed that he is not ignorant.
I will use a supporting statement.

On 11/12/2007, Scott M. Kahn <smk1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
<quote> Josh,

Your latest reply was a very well composed and researched piece.<unquote>


> It is obvious then, based on your continued need to stoop to gutter
> level,

In my opinion Joshua neither does not need to stoop to gutter level,
nor has he (certainly not 'continually').

> that respectful and knowledgable debate was not ever your
> intention, and that mucking up an ongoing debate with ill reported
> statistics compounded by mischevious and deliberate
> misinterpretations of statments, was.

I refer you to the supporting quote previously given.

>
> Too bad, I had higher hopes for you.  Enjoy the posts of others,
> yours, as they are contrived, are not worthy of further reply.

If one replies to a post, then it is considered worthy of reply.  QED.
 I think you have used the absurdist theory to disprove this comment.
>
> Respectfully,
> Sukubidubidu
>

Jejima
PS  It still isn't a duck, even if you teach it to say 'quack'.


More information about the Sumo mailing list