Do we know if he's a real scientist?
Of course he is. He says he is. And Sh!tter is never wrong about anything.
I do question if he has an actual job, or anything to keep him from drowning this board, and probably others, with his delusional BS.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do we know if he's a real scientist?
No, you are still misrepresenting what the data mean. Plus you were using loaded terms incorrectly. A study that shows a significance to a 95% confidence level does NOT "establish scientific fact." If you know what you are talking about, you should know not to state such nonsense.Do you even know what a p-value is? I use them DAILY.
This can help you: http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/what_are_conf_inter.pdf
The standard threshold, at least in the biological sciences, is p < 0.05. When the set of mice with tumors gets my test anticancer drug, I want the size of those tumors to be different from the size of the tumors for the set of mice getting only a dummy shot (no drug) with p <0.05. I also want the magnitude of the difference to be huge.
Sample size if of course important. My tests cannot use two mice, or four mice. Easy to see example: suppose you want to decide if a coin is "rigged" by flipping it. Suppose you get 5 heads in five tries. Is it a fair coin? For 5 flips, the p-value would be 2/32 = 0.0625, which is not significant at the 0.05 level. But suppose you do 10 flips and get 10 heads. The p-value would be 2/1024 ≈ 0.002, which is significant at the 0.05 level. So you would reasonably conclude that the coin is rigged, because of the statistical significance. You would also realize that your conclusion does not necessarily mean that the effect is absolutely guaranteed to be real: by chance alone about one in 20 significant findings (where p ~0.05) will be spurious. That's why the FDA will want multiple highly powered clinical trials, even if some are redundant, for my anticancer drug. They want to leave little to chance.
So there is a chance, based on the data, that Tom Brady Looks innocent but the appearance of innocence is due to random variation in the data, after cheating occurred. What sort of chance? 0.33%
The point is that the confidence measure you cited is only the confidence that one particular ball was not deflated. You portrayed it as something else entirely. For someone so intent on proving an objective scientific case, that was very sloppy of you.Goat, AEI does the analysis many ways, all permutations. Which gauge, logo/non-logo, and to how much a level of deflation is substantial.
1-in-300 is the most Patriots-favorable analysis, in that it assumes logo gauge & 1 psi deflation. (99.67%, yeah, innocent)
1-in-3 is the least Patriots-favorable analysis, in that it assumes non-logo gauge & 0.4 psi deflation. (67%, yeah, innocent, thus the worst case is above the more-likely than not threshold)
There is other evidence that I have described elsewhere that the ref's memory is correct about the logo gauge. So the value of greatest import is the entire range of 0.4-1.0 deflation using logo. This may be in their appendix of their pdf but I haven't poured over the appendix just yet.
0.4 psi is, I think you would agree, even a conservative level of minimum cause for concern. Why? Even one person using one gauge on one ball in a short time frame saw values differing by 0.4 psi in three tries (the only test that was done in triplicate). See Wells report page 70: "The pressure of the Patriots ball that had been intercepted by the Colts was separately tested three times and the measurements—11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi, respectively— were written on athletic tape that had been placed on the ball for identification". see also page 65: "Daniel retrieved a gauge that was near the air pump in the dressing area of the Locker Room, and tested the intercepted ball three times before the balance of the game balls were brought back to the Officials Locker Room" footnote: "We believe that Daniel located and used the pressure gauge supplied by the Patriots. We further believe that this is the gauge that John Jastremski considers his normal gauge."
Why is this one ball so important? It was tested immediately, so it had NO time to warm up, and it was tested in triplicate. And it was right where it ought to have been based on its temperature (a little on the high end, but not with statistical significance to argue that the Patriots are guilty of inflategate). It is overall more likely that they are guilty of inflategate rather than deflategate, but neither is established to any acceptable standard of certainty.
I wish they had attached rigorous statistical evaluations to the data on the 11 other footballs, but they don't. I'm just guessing, but the singlicate data is unlikely to give high confidence (>90%) even though it largely mirrors the triplicate data for the one ball.
So yes, "99.67% confidence" is misleading without listing the conditions.
Remember, though, the standard of guilt is 51% confidence (more likely than not). Confidence in guilt never approaches 50% or anywhere in the neighborhood.
The noncooperation by Brady, McNally and Jastremski and the tremendous increase in phone calls, texts and meetings between those three were also cited.The point is that the confidence measure you cited is only the confidence that one particular ball was not deflated. You portrayed it as something else entirely. For someone so intent on proving an objective scientific case, that was very sloppy of you.
Also, the "more probably than not" standard takes into account all the evidence, not just the ball measurements. It's the text messages that put it over the 50% threshold.
You aren't irrational AT ALL! You talk about the Colts hatred for the Pats and you spend ALL your time talking about the Colts and Manning. Way more than anyone on here does. Pot meet kettle?iubud,
I'm from Indiana and have cheered for the local teams since I was born. The local teams when I was growing up: Pacers, IU, Reds.
The Colts then played in Baltimore so I was not a fan of NFL football in general. Cincinnati Reds country extended into most of southern Indiana but for whatever reason, Cincinnati Bengals country did not.
I first moved to New England in the fall of 1984 and started to follow NFL football. I lived there 1984-1987, lived in Bloomington 1987-1991, in Cincinnati 1992-1995, and in New England again from 1995-2005.
I used to like the Colts unless they were playing NE. Then it dawned on me the level of irrational hatred Colts fans had for my team. So it went downhill in the mid-to-late-2000s. It crystallized that Colts fans were scum after their wild celebrations of the Brady season-ending knee injury in 2008.
But...
I thought I might not despise them after they dumped Peyton Manning.
I thought I might not despise them after the ass Bill Polian rode off on another ass into the blowhard commentator sunset.
I thought I might not despise them after Tony Dungy decided to give up teaching soft defense and go write his holier-than-thou books.
But I was wrong.
They still whine.
They still want the rules changed to their every whim.
They still are paranoid little pansies.
Things to dislike.
their team,
their obese I-don't-understand-this game fans,
their meth head owner,
their whiny GM,
their smug coach,
their lobbying to always change rules and points of emphasis to their favor,
their ability to get away with piping in crowd noise, as confirmed by their own stadium employees after being alleged by five different teams (http://yourteamcheats.com/IND)
their ability to steal an AFCCG in 2006 with a non-existent face guarding call (Jacksonville Jaguars beat writer Vic Ketchman: http://www.patspulpit.com/2007/1/27/131636/578)
their glory in beating the almighty Rex Grossman
their soft climate-controlled dome littered with "wild card participant" banners
their willingness to tank a season
their willingness to roll over and let the Jets make the playoffs
Yes, it is clear that the Colts are the Purdue Boilers of the NFL, and then some.
An artistic representation of what I feel about Outside Shooter's obsession?WTF is that?
Whats wrong? I was just keeping with the theme of this thread. When OS posts, its like a boil erupts....spewing everywhere.I am unfollowing this thread.
I guess not all of you are happy that the AEI report exonerates Brady. Strange reaction. Someone obviously falsely accused for so long, and now the facts are out.
You will see him opening night, on the field, under a REAL banner.
Who cares what Tommy Boy wants? I hope it does go to court. It's pretty obvious that Kraft settled so it wouldn't go to court. The questioning merely toward the "deflator" would be hilarious. I imagine there are several other interesting things that might come up if it does go. Bring it!Brady will settle for nothing less than a full exoneration:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...eal-calls-wells-report-dubious-contradictory/
The hearing for Tom Brady to appeal his four-game Deflategate suspension is a week away, and the NFL Players Association has sent the NFL a letter decrying the Ted Wells Report that formed the basis of the Brady suspension.
In the letter, according to Sal Paolantonio of ESPN, the Wells Report is described as containing “dubious, contradictory and mischaracterized circumstantial evidence” which fails to prove Brady did anything wrong...
According to Paolantonio, Brady would not be satisfied with a reduced suspension: He wants to be fully exonerated and not suspended at all, feeling he has done nothing wrong. And Patriots owner Robert Kraft believes that’s exactly what will happen, that Brady will win his appeal and will play Week One.
See you in court, Roger Goodell!