Ye Shewen

[gryphonz]

She's considered innocent entails she's to be considered as not doping.
She's considered innocent until proven guilty means she's to be considered as not doping until proven guilty
She's not proven guilty
Therefore the swimmers say they consider her to not be doping.

Should be valid(I think).

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Improper use of Occam's razor. Occam's Razor means that you use known entities rather than throw in an unknown one to explain a result.

That's just one particular take on Occam's Razor. It's not the definition. Occam's Razor covers a broad approach and the definition of the "simplest explanation" varies depending on who you ask.

 

[gryphonz]

True, the "simplest" is very subjective, but the no unnecessary multiplication of entities rule was the original version, and versions close to it were accepted by Newton, Russell and I think most experts
It may not prove, but simply shifts the burden of proof.

Karl's method wants to shift the burden of proof to the girl saying that it's simpler to think there was an unknown, undetectable chemical x that is responsible. Which seems problematic.
My approach says it's better to shift the burden of proof to the person proposing that there's an unknown chemical x. This seems more reasonable.

 

[gryphonz]

or at least, the classic version

 

[Clifferd]

Not to mention at being 16 years old, obviously being the youngest in her race she also had the disadvantage of being less developed than her competitors.

Do you think a 16 year old would win a gold medal in say men's track running for 100m, 200m or 400m?

however, as the old saying goes..."innocent until proven guilty"

 

[Bazzi]

China probably genetecially modified her when she was born.

 

[ozbash]

China probably genetecially modified her when she was born.

I think they still are.

 

[WireMan]

That Thorpe chap was good as a teenager but retired early after making huge gains in his time whilst breaking world records.

Must be the whole of the Aus swimming are drug cheats? After all the drug testing is getting better and the performances are getting worse...

Obviously as they are "innocent until proven guilty" we have to let them get on with it.... for now.

:roll:

 

[Matt23]

That Thorpe chap was good as a teenager but retired early after making huge gains in his time whilst breaking world records.

Must be the whole of the Aus swimming are drug cheats? After all the drug testing is getting better and the performances are getting worse...

Obviously as they are "innocent until proven guilty" we have to let them get on with it.... for now.

:roll:

Um that's pretty much what we said about the yanks, but why not join the kiwi's and stick the boot in. :roll:

 

[WireMan]

Um that's pretty much what we said about the yanks, but why not join the kiwi's and stick the boot in. :roll:

So we are in agreement then that the yank coach is an idiot and everyone on this thread agreeing with him is.

Its funny really.


Why wouldn't i want to stick the boot in? Your Aussie and i'm English, so even though your like a younger, rednecked brother to me, its still my job to stick it in.

You never know, you may improve quickly over the next few years and America can have a cry about it.

 

[ozbash]

Um that's pretty much what we said about the yanks, but why not join the kiwi's and stick the boot in. :roll:

Kiwis sticking the boot in ?
:roll:

 

[Karl]

Logical fallacy, appeal to authority.
Argument from authority only works when the majority of respected swimmers, swim coaches and sports officials have that opinion, rather than a minority, like Leonard. Leonard claims consensus, but it's not on public record and so must be discounted.

In that case, the majority of swimmers, swim coaches, and sports officials like Phelps, Bowman, Moynihan, Coutts et al. have come out in support of Ye. (For the sake of political correctness or whatever). In any case, the published opinion of the majority of respected swimmers and swim coaches is that she didn't dope, making a strong inductive argument that she didn't dope.

Sorry, had to register after seeing all that bad use of logic.

I think youre being unnecessarily technical and picky. Did you just pass your mid-terms in PD 101 or something? All swans are white therefore no swans are black. My argument from authority assumes the claimed consensus is real and that the PC "innocent until" position adopted publicly by those willing to talk to the media is just a deflection. Analyse that all you like.

Is that the logical fallacy you've identified?

As for your treatment of Occams razor, the drug being undetectable using current tests isn't a new variable, it's actually an historically established step in the process. Scientists deliberately develop
Drugs that can't be detected, testing technology catches up and old samples get retested, scientists develop new drugs. It's a cycle.

 

[Evil_Mush]

So.... Katie Ledecky smashed her personal best in the 800m by 20 seconds apparently.

Wonder if we'll hear anything from the Americans on that?

 

[gryphonz]

I think youre being unnecessarily technical and picky. Did you just pass your mid-terms in PD 101 or something? All swans are white therefore no swans are black. My argument from authority assumes the claimed consensus is real and that the PC "innocent until" position adopted publicly by those willing to talk to the media is just a deflection. Analyse that all you like.

Is that the logical fallacy you've identified?

As for your treatment of Occams razor, the drug being undetectable using current tests isn't a new variable, it's actually an historically established step in the process. Scientists deliberately develop
Drugs that can't be detected, testing technology catches up and old samples get retested, scientists develop new drugs. It's a cycle.

I knew you would claim that assumption. Yup, can't be used, you already know it's a logical fallacy when you only have one or two published experts supporting your claim. I could use the same assumption about everything.
Like: An expert holds that aliens created man, there is consensus, the truth is hidden by conspiracy. I assume the claimed consensus is real and that the position adopted publicly is not real. Therefore there's a presumption that aliens created man. Bullshit
What's the point of using logic if you're going to use bad reasoning? It obviously fails in the case of Galileo and whatever not, but its still stronger inductively than the flawed form you're trying to push.

As for your second point, that use of logic leads us to this:
Many countries have scientists capable of creating undetectable steroids.
Many countries have been guilty of large scale doping in the past.
Karl presumes Ye guilty until proven innocent
Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved
Therefore Karl: Consider all impressive athletes from countries capable of creating undetectable steroids which have had doping in the past guilty until proven innocent.

This is the only conclusion that fulfills impartiality.

 

[gryphonz]

my bad, there's a better option that fulfills impartiality:

Don't combine judging Ye guilty until proven innocent and not judging all impressive athletes from countries capable of creating undetectable steroids which have had doping in the past guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Karl]

You've crossed over into fullofshitland now boy.

 

[gryphonz]

Exactly, it's cos you don't know how belief and imperative logic work. Hardly PD 101. Actually, you hardly seem to know how to use basic logical systems in the first place.
Go ahead and test them, if you can. Both are valid.

Remember, it's inconsistent to not accept beliefs that follow logically from your own arguments. Or rather, if you can't accept the beliefs, you have to discard the argument. Choose one.

 

[Bretto]

It can be a made assumption without asserting that assumption as personal opinion though, right? Based on previous indiscretions, it could be assumed that drug cheating is a possibility.

You could argue a thousand different things at the end of the day, none of them really relevant to simply understanding the point that it's possible she's on drugs. It's also possible that the fact that the Chinese hired Australia's best swimming coaches to coach them, and sent their Chinese athletes to Australia with their own personal chef's, massuesses, physios, psychologists etc, with a blank cheque.

 

[gryphonz]

You can, but if it's not your personal opinion and the person using this reasoning can accept one result but not the other results that follow, there are problems with that person's consistency, or with the argument.

If you base on past indiscretions, and the possibility of an undetectable chemical x, as well as the idea that Occam's Razor says that extremely impressive performance is simpler to explain through chemical x, then you should apply that reasoning to all cases that you encounter that have these characteristics, because your reasoning would say that it is possible they are on drugs.

Specifically, you have to judge Ledecky guilty until proven innocent, since the USA has a proven steroid use history, Ledecky cut 20 seconds off her time, her teammate was convicted of doping, Ledecky has theoretical access to undetectable chemicals etc.

Then you'd have to apply your consistent reasoning to Bolt (Jamaican steroids), Phelps etc. If your argument cannot be applied like that without the person using it accepting the results, there's a problem with consistency. The argument could be right, but the person using the argument would not be consistent. Alternatively, the argument may be rejected if it leads to absurd consequences.

 

[Bretto]

Seems like you're arguing against nothing.

Is it possible she used drugs: Yes.

Is it possible she didn't use drugs: Yes.

Is it possible all athletes use drugs: Yes.

Is it possible all athletes don't use drugs: Yes.

Anything in between and personal opinions formed then is simply up to the individual? You would need to look at the evidence at hand, and at the end of the day, only one person probably really knows if she cheated.