dave mcbride Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Read the heading of each page that has the tables. They all say "Assumption". They are basing their information off of the Wells report but doing it in a way the discredits the Wells report. They are saying that they don't know but are using the same science to claim that the report is wrong. Isn't it that they're using the same science but running more elaborate (and different) regressions?
The Wiz Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Isn't it that they're using the same science but running more elaborate (and different) regressions? It could be. The thing is when you run tests without an end you are likely to find an anomaly. For all we know they ran their test 1000 times and only found the balls to be within limits 4 times. That's what they are going to report to make our look like the wells report was wrong. AEI isn't trying to say the science is wrong, just cast a shadow of a doubt.
dave mcbride Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) It could be. The thing is when you run tests without an end you are likely to find an anomaly. For all we know they ran their test 1000 times and only found the balls to be within limits 4 times. That's what they are going to report to make our look like the wells report was wrong. AEI isn't trying to say the science is wrong, just cast a shadow of a doubt. This is why I want to see a thorough analysis of their report. Neither of these reports are peer reviewed, and the Wells report is the equivalent of a law review article (i.e., not peer reviewed and a combination of a prosecutorial legal brief and a traditional social science article). AEI articles/reports aren't peer reviewed either as far as I know, although Hassett has gone through peer review dozens of times. Wells has presumably never gone through it, although Marlow surely has. Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride
MattM Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) This is why I want to see a thorough analysis of their report. Neither of these reports are peer reviewed, and the Wells report is the equivalent of a law review article (i.e., not peer reviewed and a combination of a prosecutorial legal brief and a traditional social science article). AEI articles/reports aren't peer reviewed either as far as I know, although Hassett has gone through peer review dozens of times. Wells has presumably never gone through it, although Marlow surely has. Hassett? You mean the guy who grew up probably a Pats* fan in MA and who brought us "Dow 36,000" right before the tech bubble crashed? The guy who after that brilliant move could only find work at AEI telling rich donors what they wanted to hear (those right wing think tanks will never go broke at least!)? The guy who's an economist and not even a physical scientist? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...... Edited June 24, 2015 by MattM
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 This is why I want to see a thorough analysis of their report. Neither of these reports are peer reviewed, and the Wells report is the equivalent of a law review article (i.e., not peer reviewed and a combination of a prosecutorial legal brief and a traditional social science article). AEI articles/reports aren't peer reviewed either as far as I know, although Hassett has gone through peer review dozens of times. Wells has presumably never gone through it, although Marlow surely has. With no real control group nor knowledge of original ball pressure and no proper measurement testing, no scientific peer group would ever accept the results in the Wells report. Such inadequacy casts the Wells report as nothing but a complete scam.
dave mcbride Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Hassett? You mean the guy who grew up probably a Pats* fan in MA and who brought us "Dow 36,000" right before the tech bubble crashed? The guy who after that brilliant move could only find work at AEI telling rich donors what they wanted to hear (those right wing think tanks will never go broke at least!)? The guy who's an economist and not even a physical scientist? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...... I suggest threading up and looking at what I wrote about his CV instead of engaging in grandstanding. The issue is regressions, not basic high school-level science. And I'm probably farther to the left than you, fwiw. Edited June 25, 2015 by dave mcbride
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 With no real control group nor knowledge of original ball pressure and no proper measurement testing, no scientific peer group would ever accept the results in the Wells report. Such inadequacy casts the Wells report as nothing but a complete scam. Yeah, because there's no middle ground between "fraud" and "published in Physical Review B." And the control group was Indianapolis' balls, you idiot.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Yeah, because there's no middle ground between "fraud" and "published in Physical Review B." And the control group was Indianapolis' balls, you idiot. I'm glad you're weighing in on this. Probably the only one here who can genuinely understand a lot of this crap.
eball Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 @26...that "interview" may be the most ridiculous thing I've heard. "Everything in Tom Brady*'s life is good." Rapoport provided absolutely no insight, despite Eisen's consistent prodding for some.
26CornerBlitz Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 @26...that "interview" may be the most ridiculous thing I've heard. "Everything in Tom Brady*'s life is good." Rapoport provided absolutely no insight, despite Eisen's consistent prodding for some. Add this to his Rap sheet!
YoloinOhio Posted June 25, 2015 Author Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) @26...that "interview" may be the most ridiculous thing I've heard. "Everything in Tom Brady*'s life is good." Rapoport provided absolutely no insight, despite Eisen's consistent prodding for some.i listened to a similar interview yesterday with Adam Schefter. "I've worked with Tommy on 3 different charity events and he's the most genuine person I've ever met!" Edited June 25, 2015 by YoloinOhio
26CornerBlitz Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 i listened to a similar interview yesterday with Adam Schefter. "I've worked with Tommy on 3 different charity events and he's the most genuine person I've ever met!" No bias there whatsoever.
plenzmd1 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Yeah, because there's no middle ground between "fraud" and "published in Physical Review B." And the control group was Indianapolis' balls, you idiot. Now I am no physicist , but Colts balls could have been measured with a different gauge at beginning of game ....and only 4 were measured ( as opposed to 12 Pats balls), at a later time than the Pats balls as the conditions were changing.( warming up inside the refs room) That cannot be considered a control group can it? All things were not equal. Edited June 25, 2015 by plenzmd1
eball Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 The science isn't going to be the determining factor here -- if the Pats** really thought they could win the science battle Kraft wouldn't have caved. I truly believe the only factor relevant to Goodell in Tuesday's 10-hour session was whether Brady* appeared to be honest and sincere, and if he provided any new information other than "his word" that he should be exonerated.
MattM Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I suggest threading up and looking at what I wrote about his CV instead of engaging in grandstanding. The issue is regressions, not basic high school-level science. And I'm probably farther to the left than you, fwiw. Grandstanding? I gave several good reasons why Hassett is really not any authority here (or, to thinking people anywhere, on anything). In terms of your original statement on him having gone through peer review "dozens of times", I highly doubt AEI material is peer reviewed, but could be wrong. In terms of academia, he was only a professor (at Columbia B-School) for about 5 years--perhaps he published dozens of article while there, but if so, that would make him much more prolific than the average B-school prof. The AEI report sought to focus on the weak link in the public opinion war--since most people don't understand the science, it made it the easiest to attack, so they hired their version of a hit man to do so. Plain and simple. Folks understand the texts, so after their initial foray into trying to explain those away (to wit, "he was trying to lose weight"), they realized there was no way they could spin those, so they tried this tack. Judging by some of the responses on this thread, it seems to be working.
dave mcbride Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Grandstanding? I gave several good reasons why Hassett is really not any authority here (or, to thinking people anywhere, on anything). In terms of your original statement on him having gone through peer review "dozens of times", I highly doubt AEI material is peer reviewed, but could be wrong. In terms of academia, he was only a professor (at Columbia B-School) for about 5 years--perhaps he published dozens of article while there, but if so, that would make him much more prolific than the average B-school prof. The AEI report sought to focus on the weak link in the public opinion war--since most people don't understand the science, it made it the easiest to attack, so they hired their version of a hit man to do so. Plain and simple. Folks understand the texts, so after their initial foray into trying to explain those away (to wit, "he was trying to lose weight"), they realized there was no way they could spin those, so they tried this tack. Judging by some of the responses on this thread, it seems to be working. I'm not sure you're aware of the centrality of impact factor in economics journals publishing (NOT business/management journals) or the difference between getting tenure at Columbia vs. Midwestern A & M University. Point is, by standard measures within academia he's in the top 5 percent of all economists in the world by impact factor (despite the fact that his co-authored general interest/trade book, Dow 36,000, is rubbish): https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html . It's not easy to get published in the QJE or AER. Take a look at his CV. Finally, an AEI report is not peer reviewed and I said that above. Edited June 25, 2015 by dave mcbride
Fadingpain Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Rapoport comes across like a stammering fool. He frankly does not appear intelligent enough to deliver thoughtful insight into the situation. Eisen should have interviewed his dog instead. We would have learned as much.
MattM Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I'm not sure you're aware of the centrality of impact factor in economics journals publishing (NOT business/management journals) or the difference between getting tenure at Columbia vs. Midwestern A & M University. Point is, by standard measures within academia he's in the top 5 percent of all economists in the world by impact factor (despite the fact that his co-authored general interest/trade book, Dow 36,000, is rubbish): https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html . It's not easy to get published in the QJE or AER. Take a look at his CV. Finally, an AEI report is not peer reviewed and I said that above. I'm a graduate of Columbia, so, yeah, I get that difference. (BTW, my Econ prof there was Sunil Gulati, now head of US Soccer--great guy and great teacher). Thanks for the link. Without knowing too much about it's methodology, have to question any ranking that has both Reinhart and Rogoff still among their most top trusted/influential after a UMass grad student found major errors in their seminal work, but that may just be me.....
plenzmd1 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 The science isn't going to be the determining factor here -- if the Pats** really thought they could win the science battle Kraft wouldn't have caved. I truly believe the only factor relevant to Goodell in Tuesday's 10-hour session was whether Brady* appeared to be honest and sincere, and if he provided any new information other than "his word" that he should be exonerated. See, someone smart like me!
Recommended Posts