NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped
Comments
-
Th Earth isn't approximately "round" - its shape is very close to that of an oblate spheroid
0 -
+1 whilst the philisophy went well over my head, in general I respect the arguments BB makes and I think this forum would be worse off without them.Kléber wrote:I don't think so Dave_1, one of the interesting aspects of the Armstrong allegations is the divisive nature of the argument and the role of faith, deduction and evidence within this. No other rider attracts such scrutiny or manages to evoke the dilemma of induction and heuristics.
You can just click on other threads if it's not for you. The world "Armstrong" in the title should be a clue0 -
True enough. (Although isn't it true to say that an oblate spheroid is 'approximately round' which is what I actually said?).stagehopper wrote:Th Earth isn't approximately "round" - its shape is very close to that of an oblate spheroid
Whatever, what you say raises another philosophical issue that does not justify the sort of conclusions that are often drawn from it by those who would like to argue that science can never claim to offer 'truth'. That is, the degree to which 'approximation' and 'truth' are related.
A classic example is the shift from a Newtonian to Einsteinian view of the universe, with the detractors of science arguing that Einstein showed that Newton was 'wrong'. In reality the Newtonian model offers an 'approximation' which so closely describes the motion of objects in the solar system that it is nonsensical to argue that it is no more true than, say Hopi Indian myths about the nature of the solar system.
The same principle applies to the shape of the Earth. To say that the earth is an oblate spheroid is more accurate than to say it is 'round', but even to say that it is round, whilst not absolutely 'true', is not false in the same sense as claiming that it is flat or cuboid. The anti-science naysayers, operating within the restricted framework offered by binary logic, distinguish only between truth, such as (for sake of argument) 'The earth is an oblate spheroid' and 'false' which is everything else, ranging from 'the Earth is round' to 'the Earth is flat'. However, it is clear that all these 'false' alternatives are not equivalent in terms of their truth value.
That those who claim that 'science can never establish truth' are relying on an unjustifiably narrow interpretation of what 'truth' means is also evident if we think about something such as the mass or size of a brick. Even if our measurements say that the mass of the brick is 2.75 kg, when in fact it is 2.750001kg, does not justify a claim that the measured mass of 2.75 kg is 'false' in the same way as saying its mass is 1 g or 100 kg is false. However, this is effectively what the critics of science are often trying to claim: that there is absolute 'truth' and all else is false to an equivalent degree, a view which opens the door to irrationality and relativism.
(By way of illustration, the first page of results for a Google search using the terms 'science, truth, approximation' brings up a number of sites that discuss exactly the sort of issues I have mentioned. One site seems to be promoting the idea that 'nutritional supplements' can be used to treat cancer. Another is focused on promoting Tibetan 'spiritual healing'!).
Anyhow, let's hope that the Novitsky investigation gives us something else to talk about soon. 0 -
Einstein still only offers us a hypothesis, since it is impossible to relate partical physics with the broader theories of the universe suggested by Einstein. There is no unifying theory.
By contrast, if you are religious then often you accept scriptures and teachings as belief and nothing that is said will shake your belief. Indeed, without wishing to insult those keen on faith, we can look at others who believe in things like UFOs or particular doomsday scenarios, where no matter what evidence is presented, they refuse to change their mind and psychologically the more they are confronted with evidence, the more they cling to the original belief, a phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance".
If this is all getting too much, let's go back in time 700 years to William of Occam, (Ockham, a village in Surrey today). His works are known from stating that more often than not the simplest explanation is the correct one, you use the razor to slice away the uncertainties. Asserting "pro cyclist doped to win races during 1990s" is a plausible starting point. Whether Novitzky finds evidence to support this claim in relation to one team remains to be seen.0 -
kinda agree with Pat... doing the dirty washing in public is not great for many riders. Am sure the forum's anti-doping warriors would disagree with Pat M though
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... l-vendetta0 -
Dave_1 wrote:kinda agree with Pat... doing the dirty washing in public is not great for many riders. Am sure the forum's anti-doping warriors would disagree with Pat M though
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... l-vendetta
He's wrong though, the Landis emails were sent to the relevant authorities long before they were leaked. He needs to go, before he does any more damage. He's taken a partisan line throughout this, supporting LA, when he really needs to be scrupulously neutral.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Kléber wrote:I don't think so Dave_1, one of the interesting aspects of the Armstrong allegations is the divisive nature of the argument and the role of faith, deduction and evidence within this. No other rider attracts such scrutiny or manages to evoke the dilemma of induction and heuristics.
You can just click on other threads if it's not for you. The world "Armstrong" in the title should be a clue
+1
Personally I like "off topic", it's often interesting to see how a thread develops into something entirely different, like a game of Chinese whispers.
+2
Sometimes a dull thread going off at a tangent can spark it into life.
Besides, there appears to have been a bit of a concerted effort to "take out" BB, with a few of the regulars playing the man, not the.............erm..................ball. :oops: "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Kléber wrote:I don't think so Dave_1, one of the interesting aspects of the Armstrong allegations is the divisive nature of the argument and the role of faith, deduction and evidence within this. No other rider attracts such scrutiny or manages to evoke the dilemma of induction and heuristics.
You can just click on other threads if it's not for you. The world "Armstrong" in the title should be a clue
+1
Personally I like "off topic", it's often interesting to see how a thread develops into something entirely different, like a game of Chinese whispers.
+2
Sometimes a dull thread going off at a tangent can spark it into life.
Besides, there appears to have been a bit of a concerted effort to "take out" BB, with a few of the regulars playing the man, not the.............erm..................ball. :oops:
let a hundred flowers bloom-do your sino-history Blaze! You, Kleber, you're biking bernie people..0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Kléber wrote:I don't think so Dave_1, one of the interesting aspects of the Armstrong allegations is the divisive nature of the argument and the role of faith, deduction and evidence within this. No other rider attracts such scrutiny or manages to evoke the dilemma of induction and heuristics.
You can just click on other threads if it's not for you. The world "Armstrong" in the title should be a clue
+1
Personally I like "off topic", it's often interesting to see how a thread develops into something entirely different, like a game of Chinese whispers.
+2
Sometimes a dull thread going off at a tangent can spark it into life.
Besides, there appears to have been a bit of a concerted effort to "take out" BB, with a few of the regulars playing the man, not the.............erm..................ball. :oops:
let a hundred flowers bloom-do your sino-history Blaze! You, Kleber, you're biking bernie people..
Right you are, Bæaze and Kleber, and probably mysklef are Maoist because we happen to disagree with you....
You're coming perilously close to Godwin's law there Dave.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Kléber wrote:I don't think so Dave_1, one of the interesting aspects of the Armstrong allegations is the divisive nature of the argument and the role of faith, deduction and evidence within this. No other rider attracts such scrutiny or manages to evoke the dilemma of induction and heuristics.
You can just click on other threads if it's not for you. The world "Armstrong" in the title should be a clue
+1
Personally I like "off topic", it's often interesting to see how a thread develops into something entirely different, like a game of Chinese whispers.
+2
Sometimes a dull thread going off at a tangent can spark it into life.
Besides, there appears to have been a bit of a concerted effort to "take out" BB, with a few of the regulars playing the man, not the.............erm..................ball. :oops:
let a hundred flowers bloom-do your sino-history Blaze! You, Kleber, you're biking bernie people..
Right you are, Bæaze and Kleber, and probably mysklef are Maoist because we happen to disagree with you....
You're coming perilously close to Godwin's law there Dave.
nah, since we are allowed to write about whatever we like in a thread regardless of the thread title, the 100 flowers campaign was Mao Tse Tung's way of IDing people who weren't Maoist, like this thread/page is a great way of IDing who's a closet xenophob, rabidly anti-American zealot. Anyone who stands up for BB's wish to drag every thread into America bashing is closely aligned with him0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Besides, there appears to have been a bit of a concerted effort to "take out" BB, with a few of the regulars playing the man, not the.............erm..................ball. :oops:
Blaze, "Bernie" himself is not averse to playing the man either, lest we forget aurelio's banning last year, and it often happens in a rather insidious manner (extrapolating to some more extreme position then attributing that position to the person he is arguing with, "No doubt you'd be the kind of person who....").
People are well within their rights to question his motives for posting so single-mindedly on one topic, though it seems to be pretty obvious now that this is politically motivated rather than being particularly anti-doping, given his Trappist vow of silence on any doping that can't be linked to Armstrong (twice during the Tour I asked him if he thought Schleck and Contador were riding clean - no answer). The other 10% of his posts bear this political motivation out (Cavendish - alleged to have made anti-French remarks, Nicole Cooke - endorsed helmet wearing, Sky - Murdoch, etc.).Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Aurelio was banned for one reason only - jokingly using the term 'jacking off thinking of Lance' in a response to a post by the odious 'jackhammer'. At almost exactly the same time, it might have even been in the same thread, old Dennis effectively called a female poster on on her a 'stupid cunt' without censure. Go figure, as they say...DaveyL wrote:"Bernie" himself is not averse to playing the man either, lest we forget aurelio's banning last year
It seems that in your mind any comment I make about doping, even to someone like Indurain, is in some way 'linked to Armstrong'. As to 'political motivation', no one is without 'political' motivation, even in relation to the most mundane of matters. This includes those who support Armstrong because he represents 'values' they themselves hold dear. Unlike many I have at least been honest about my 'politics', and I don't deny that part of my dislike of Armstrong is his 'personality' and what he is often held to stand for.DaveyL wrote:People are well within their rights to question his motives for posting so single-mindedly on one topic, though it seems to be pretty obvious now that this is politically motivated rather than being particularly anti-doping, given his Trappist vow of silence on any doping that can't be linked to Armstrong (twice during the Tour I asked him if he thought Schleck and Contador were riding clean - no answer).
To be honest you seem to be developing an 'unhealthy obsession' with what I post. It's a forum FFS where people like to engage in a bit of healthy debate! Sorry, but it seems that the would-be 'book burners' don't have the support of many of the regular poster on here. 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:To be honest you seem to be developing an 'unhealthy obsession' with what I post. It's a forum FFS where people like to engage in a bit of healthy debate! Sorry, but it seems that the would-be 'book burners' don't have the support of many of the regular poster on here.
Maybe when 90% of my posts are about one topic - i.e. your posts - we can call it unhealthy?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Aurelio was banned for one reason only - jokingly using the term 'jacking off thinking of Lance' in a response to a post by the odious 'jackhammer'. At almost exactly the same time, it might have even been in the same thread, old Dennis effectively called a female poster on on her a 'stupid cunt' without censure. Go figure, as they say...DaveyL wrote:"Bernie" himself is not averse to playing the man either, lest we forget aurelio's banning last year
It seems that in your mind any comment I make about doping, even to someone like Indurain, is in some way 'linked to Armstrong'. As to 'political motivation', no one is without 'political' motivation, even in relation to the most mundane of matters. This includes those who support Armstrong because he represents 'values' they themselves hold dear. Unlike many I have at least been honest about my 'politics', and I don't deny that part of my dislike of Armstrong is his 'personality' and what he is often held to stand for.DaveyL wrote:People are well within their rights to question his motives for posting so single-mindedly on one topic, though it seems to be pretty obvious now that this is politically motivated rather than being particularly anti-doping, given his Trappist vow of silence on any doping that can't be linked to Armstrong (twice during the Tour I asked him if he thought Schleck and Contador were riding clean - no answer).
To be honest you seem to be developing an 'unhealthy obsession' with what I post. It's a forum FFS where people like to engage in a bit of healthy debate! Sorry, but it seems that the would-be 'book burners' don't have the support of many of the regular poster on here.
Oh the irony..
I don't think you have the faintest idea what "healthy" debate means tbf, and from where I'm sitting you just seem to just come across as some kind of lunatic obsessive.
Are you single by any chance? (serious question)
;-)0 -
I am quite happy to discuss broader topics. Personally, I feel that the whole 'free will' issue can be reduced down to a discussion of whether it makes sense to argue that there can be such a thing as 'non-physical causation'. That said, given that the brain is a noisy, non-linear, dynamical system with a vast number of degrees of freedom, I in no way believe that determinism can be equated with prediction.DaveyL wrote:Maybe when 90% of my posts are about one topic - i.e. your posts - we can call it unhealthy?
0 -
No, but I think there are probably times when my wife wishes I was.sampras38 wrote:Are you single by any chance? (serious question)
;-) 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I am quite happy to discuss broader topics. Personally, I feel that the whole 'free will' issue can be reduced down to a discussion of whether it makes sense to argue that there can be such a thing as 'non-physical causation'. That said, given that the brain is a noisy, non-linear, dynamical system with a vast number of degrees of freedom, I in no way believe that determinism can be equated with prediction.DaveyL wrote:Maybe when 90% of my posts are about one topic - i.e. your posts - we can call it unhealthy?
Yep, definately single...
http://www.stuffwelike.com/stuffwelike/ ... mite_1.jpg0 -
Top 10 reasons nerds are sexysampras38 wrote:
#10 What you see is what you get. Nerds don't do phony.
#9 They come through for you. Nerds know all about awkward situations. They'll come to your rescue anytime you need them.
#8 They peak later. Muscles don't last; minds do.
#7 They think about sex. To paraphrase a line from Revenge of the Nerds, "Jocks think about sports. Nerds think about sex." I know who I'd rather spend the night with.
#6 They believe if something's worth doing, it's worth doing well. Think about what that means when what they're doing is you.
#5 They'll never take you for granted. Women don't line up to go out with them, so they'll knock themselves out to please you.
#4 They study--everything. While an ordinary guy might spend hours with Playboy, a nerd will more likely pick up a copy of the Kama Sutra.
#3 They have long attention spans. When something fascinates them, they can spend hours exploring the subject. Consider the implications when the subject is: you.
#2 They have small egos. You'll never hear a nerd say, "Hey, baby, how 'bout it?"
AND THE #1 REASON NERDS ARE SEXY IS...
#1 They're big where it really matters. What's the sexiest part of the body? The brain. This guy has the imaginative firepower to fulfill all your fantasies, plus all the ones he's dreamed up, you lucky nerd lover, you! 0 -
DaveyL wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Besides, there appears to have been a bit of a concerted effort to "take out" BB, with a few of the regulars playing the man, not the.............erm..................ball. :oops:
Blaze, "Bernie" himself is not averse to playing the man either, lest we forget aurelio's banning last year, and it often happens in a rather insidious manner (extrapolating to some more extreme position then attributing that position to the person he is arguing with, "No doubt you'd be the kind of person who....").
People are well within their rights to question his motives for posting so single-mindedly on one topic, though it seems to be pretty obvious now that this is politically motivated rather than being particularly anti-doping, given his Trappist vow of silence on any doping that can't be linked to Armstrong (twice during the Tour I asked him if he thought Schleck and Contador were riding clean - no answer). The other 10% of his posts bear this political motivation out (Cavendish - alleged to have made anti-French remarks, Nicole Cooke - endorsed helmet wearing, Sky - Murdoch, etc.).
well said DaveyL. I just don't want that zealot turning unrelated threads into Armstrong threads, better to just keep it to threads that indicate they are LA related in the title0 -
In the words of Lee Evans
"Eees a mental"!!0 -
'Slap', 'Slap' wake up BB your'e dreaming again 0
-
0
-
sampras38 wrote:In the words of Lee Evans
"Eees a mental"!!
As the chinese say, the worst thing to wish upon someone is "may you live in interesting times".+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
0
-
Moray Gub wrote:
He got all his stuff from "Bernie". The authorities have since said they've thrown out 69,990 pages about "right-wing authoritarian/hierarchical structures" and "Uebermenschens" and 9 pages of photos of Lance with his top off.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:Moray Gub wrote:micron wrote:bipedal wrote:
"Greg LeMond was also served with a subpoena to provide information, and said that he delivered 70,000 pages to the investigators at the end of July.
Just a page or two then Greg
He got all his stuff from "Bernie". The authorities have since said they've thrown out 69,990 pages about "right-wing authoritarian/hierarchical structures" and "Uebermenschens" and 9 pages of photos of Lance with his top off.
Did they keep the graph?0 -
Forgive me if someone has posted this
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-2 ... andis.html?
Contador being slightly dragged into it...Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
More stuff
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lan ... 8173.story?
Sounds like Betsy has some stuff Bernie didn't have in his archive....Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:More stuff
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lan ... 8173.story?
Sounds like Betsy has some stuff Bernie didn't have in his archive....
Whoa, something Bernie didn't have in his archive????
Now THAT'S what I call NEWS.0
