Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: "Sandy" <leurrre@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:12:27 -0500
Dans le message de news:k8gd35pcjgs654qcop3b81d3f0on7b07m6@xxxxxxx,
curtis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <curtis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a réfléchi, et puis
a déclaré :
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:01:20 -0500, "Sandy" <leurrre@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Convioncing IS proving.
Maybe in front of a jury or a judge. Won't argue that it is generally
part of the process of proof, although not always (say, for instance,
most math, where it would be generally 'proving is convincing'), but
they are not equivalent in most cases.
Hey - we're talking about Amit's subject, no? Where in all the dope testing
done have you been shown "proof" that convinced you? Then it ain't proof,
is it? Did Kohl convince you he was almost always doped while a pro? Did
he convince you all the others (well, maybe some exceptions) were doping?
Will the UCI and the mad dogs at WADA take much convincing? Yet when they
are adequately convinced (level of conviction - "pretty good, I guess") it
will BE proof, just as flaky and unreliable as the disputed testing and
"proof" from the labs. Proof is irrefutable, as is the prohibition on
making a living as a racer for a long period of time. The only reliable
stuff here amounts to disproving an issue, so thank God we don't have the
death penalty for juicing. Post-mortem DNA analysis is not at all
satisfying.
Why is there such a difficulty in recognizing that context and connotation
are essential to understanding. Maybe if TK hadn't lopped off Amit's
premise, it would have been clearer.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
The problem with people who have
no vices is that generally you can
be pretty sure they're going to have
some pretty annoying virtues.
- Elizabeth Taylor
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: Amit Ghosh
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- References:
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: Paul B. Anders
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: Carl Sundquist
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: Paul B. Anders
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: rick
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: Robert Chung
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: Amit Ghosh
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: Tom Kunich
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: Sandy
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- From: curtis
- Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- Prev by Date: Re: Cyclingnew's "New Look"
- Next by Date: Re: Contador considers Armstrong and Leipheimer Tour rivals
- Previous by thread: Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- Next by thread: Re: LeMond on statistical analysis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading