dave mcbride Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 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..... The Reinhardt/Rogoff book is mostly right, although they committed one error (which they publicly fessed up to). In the grand scheme of their book (THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT), it wasn't especially important, but the particular point was of course hijacked and abused by the pro-austerity folks. That's why it became important (and rightly so). But you know what they say: a writer can't control his fans. Ken Rogoff is otherwise a very high-caliber economist.
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I guess I understand. But I don't know what that proves. Academically you could disprove the paper because, as you say, there was not a written down starting point. But they did have a specific and solid starting point, which no one denies. So it seems to me that you could prove the science as to whether or not the balls were altered, you just couldn't prove it academically or as you say like in a peer review. It means that any conclusion(s) drawn from PSI measurements alone are fatally flawed.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 It means that any conclusion(s) drawn from PSI measurements alone are fatally flawed. No, only in a 100% certainty world. Not in a 99.99% certainty world.
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 That's it! I want all NFL Referee's watches AND the game clocks in every stadium calibrated with an atomic clock before every game, at the end of halftime, and at the end of every game, and before and after any overtime period. It's only common sense. Somebody's been getting screwed. I know it I just can't prove it. But I know it. The only way to settle it is to calibrate all the chronometers with an atomic clock. Anything less and it would be a travesty. A travesty. I foresee another $5M bill job by Mr Wells and his hot shot team.
mannc Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 The Patriots** can't go a few months without cheating. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/25/nflpa-files-complaint-over-patriots-treatment-of-malcolm-butler/ These guys are like Snidley Whiplash. This really deserves its own thread. What have you done for me lately?? Disgusting.
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 No, only in a 100% certainty world. Not in a 99.99% certainty world. Scientifically, it is 100% flawed. Legally ......
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Scientifically, it is 100% flawed. Legally ......I understand what you are saying. I do. Let's pose this a different way. Are you saying that because the NFL did not calibrate a gauge and then write down 12.5 12 times in a row and then 13.0 12 times in a row, that NO SCIENCE whatsoever should be included in trying to figure out did Tom Brady cheat, because it's automatically 100% scientifically flawed? That very much seems to be what you are saying. That also very much seems to be insane.
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Two things: (1) best that can be provided in opposition to tampering is "you cannot prove it definitively with science". Whether they're using the Ideal Gas Law, Van der Waals equation, etc., there's no denying that the Pats** footballs deflated more than (a) what the Colts' did (even when factoring in the idea that Indy's footballs sat in a warmer environment for longer) and (b) the laws predict (even with a 5% confidence interval--which is too large IMO). (2) if it goes to court, the lawyers for the NFL can and will subpoena Brady's phone for relevant correspondence...not good for him or his case (presumably, and considering that he refused to even turn over correspondence selected at his discretion, I think it's a safe presumption). The baseline reference for the original PSI was never properly established so, scientifically, the entire premise is fatally flawed without even having to consider PV=nRT.
thebandit27 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 The baseline reference for the original PSI was never properly established so, scientifically, the entire premise is fatally flawed without even having to consider PV=nRT. And when there's no guarantee of 100% accurate forensic evidence (assuming we can only accept guaranteed 100% accurate evidence--which isn't the case in civil law where this would end up), we turn to circumstantial evidence, which ALL indicates that (a) they did it, and (b) Brady was involved. What hard evidence there is, however, does indeed point to tampering.
MattM Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I am just commenting from a science perspective. if I were called in to debunk the paper, I could easily do so in a manner of minutes. How that reflects legally .... beats me. I'm a lawyer, but admittedly not a labor lawyer. From what I've read elsewhere it sounds like the scope of review on appeal in a court action would be very narrow (ie, on something like the NFL having proper authority under its own rules to give this suspension), all of which would make it very difficult for Brady to win in court.
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I understand what you are saying. I do. Let's pose this a different way. Are you saying that because the NFL did not calibrate a gauge and then write down 12.5 12 times in a row and then 13.0 12 times in a row, that NO SCIENCE whatsoever should be included in trying to figure out did Tom Brady cheat, because it's automatically 100% scientifically flawed? That very much seems to be what you are saying. That also very much seems to be insane. Not sure how else to put it other that .... for a test to be scientifically valid, strict protocols and testing methodologies must be followed. If those aren't followed then the test is invalid. From a legal perspective, I would think that any conclusions drawn from the test would be viewed as suspect, at best. But, that's not my area. And when there's no guarantee of 100% accurate forensic evidence (assuming we can only accept guaranteed 100% accurate evidence--which isn't the case in civil law where this would end up), we turn to circumstantial evidence, which ALL indicates that (a) they did it, and (b) Brady was involved. What hard evidence there is, however, does indeed point to tampering. Again, I am not speaking from a legal standpoint here. I'm a lawyer, but admittedly not a labor lawyer. From what I've read elsewhere it sounds like the scope of review on appeal in a court action would be very narrow (ie, on something like the NFL having proper authority under its own rules to give this suspension), all of which would make it very difficult for Brady to win in court. If it ends up in court my gut feeling is it'll be union vs goliath. Can goliath prove that there is enough proof to justly firing the union guy? I pass this off to the legal experts.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Not sure how else to put it other that .... for a test to be scientifically valid, strict protocols and testing methodologies must be followed. If those aren't followed then the test is invalid. From a legal perspective, I would think that any conclusions drawn from the test would be viewed as suspect, at best. But, that's not my area. Why would you think from a legal standpoint no science whatsoever without being suspect can possibly enter this equation because academically the science cannot be 100% accurate? What makes you say that? Edited June 25, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Why would you think from a legal standpoint no science whatsoever without being suspect can possibly enter this equation because academically the science cannot be 100% accurate? What makes you say that? I am only speaking of PSI testing and methodology and not of any new science discovery that may, or may not, be relevant.
thebandit27 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Again, I am not speaking from a legal standpoint here. It would seem, then, that you're entire point is that there's no way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that tampering occurred...I think pretty much the entire football-watching world is of that opinion. I also think that practically the entire football-watching world understands that it's (to borrow the legal operative clause) "more probable than not" that tampering did occur, and that Brady was involved--a claim you don't seem to be refuting.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I am only speaking of PSI testing and methodology and not of any new science discovery that may, or may not, be relevant. If you disqualify the PSI testing there is no science to discuss. I guess we have exhausted this discussion. You are entitled to the opinion for sure. I just don't see it in any possible way that legally, they would consider all testing as suspect.
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 It would seem, then, that you're entire point is that there's no way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that tampering occurred...I think pretty much the entire football-watching world is of that opinion. I also think that practically the entire football-watching world understands that it's (to borrow the legal operative clause) "more probable than not" that tampering did occur, and that Brady was involved--a claim you don't seem to be refuting. There are two distinct science points here. The first is the establishment of the baseline reference of the original PSI which, due to improper testing methodologies employed by the league (its refs) can never be established such that any conclusions drawn from it are deemed scientifically plausible. At it's basic and fundamental level the issue is fatally flawed. The second is whether or not PV=nRT even need be considered since, its inclusion is to determine if basic gas law can account for any noted gas pressure drop relative to temperature conditions. The issue with this point is any "noted" gas pressure drop will not have been properly accounted for due to not passing go wrt point 1 above.
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Scientifically, it is 100% flawed. What does that even mean?
thebandit27 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 There are two distinct science points here. The first is the establishment of the baseline reference of the original PSI which, due to improper testing methodologies employed by the league (its refs) can never be established such that any conclusions drawn from it are deemed scientifically plausible. At it's basic and fundamental level the issue is fatally flawed. The second is whether or not PV=nRT even need be considered since, its inclusion is to determine if basic gas law can account for any noted gas pressure drop relative to temperature conditions. The issue with this point is any "noted" gas pressure drop will not have been properly accounted for due to not passing go wrt point 1 above. I feel like you just completely ignored my last post for the sake of talking down to me in scientific terms. I'm not acluistic; I took thermodynamics just like every other engineering student.
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 What does that even mean? ... that the science test performed on the balls was 100% flawed. I feel like you just completely ignored my last post for the sake of talking down to me in scientific terms. I'm not acluistic; I took thermodynamics just like every other engineering student. Ah, sorry. I misquoted you and meant my summary science response for Kelly the Dog's post. Apologies. It would seem, then, that you're entire point is that there's no way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that tampering occurred...I think pretty much the entire football-watching world is of that opinion. I also think that practically the entire football-watching world understands that it's (to borrow the legal operative clause) "more probable than not" that tampering did occur, and that Brady was involved--a claim you don't seem to be refuting. I think it is possible to prove that tampering occurred; just not via the establishment of the original PSI methodology which seems to be the basis for the entire Wells report. I have no opinion on the "more probable than not" point as it's an exercise in futility to try and figure out what Goodell might do.
LeGOATski Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 I feel like this discussion has established that the tests aren't 100% accurate and also that it doesn't matter that they weren't 100% accurate.
Recommended Posts