Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

on Kenyan "elasticity" [split]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

    In other words, confirmation biases are rampant.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

      Originally posted by Daisy
      In other words, confirmation biases are rampant.
      or, the Scientific Method gone horribly awry!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

        Originally posted by Marlow
        Originally posted by Daisy
        In other words, confirmation biases are rampant.
        or, the Scientific Method gone horribly awry!
        They are almost mutually inclusive.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: on Kenyan "elasticity" [split]

          Wait a minute ... no comparisons to non-athletic Kenyan males, nor athletic white males? Are they serious? And this crap gets published in a real journal, not just some random blog or The Onion? :roll:

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: on Kenyan "elasticity" [split]

            Originally posted by 18.99s
            Wait a minute ... no comparisons to non-athletic Kenyan males, nor athletic white males? Are they serious? And this crap gets published in a real journal, not just some random blog or The Onion? :roll:
            ...and measuring a non-definable/non-existent parameter "elasticity." :roll: :twisted:
            "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
            by Thomas Henry Huxley

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

              Originally posted by Marlow
              Originally posted by Daisy
              For what it's worth, here is a summary of their measurements and conclusions.
              • The researchers compared ten international level Kenyan runners to 10 non-trained white males, matching them for height.
              That ain't worth squat! Proves nothing. Of course elite TRAINED runners are more athletic than non-trained 'random' people! DUH!

              this si the type of rubbish I don't understand, why would somebody investigating something academically make such a useless study it can't possibly elimanate some straight forward and obvious variables. The only genuine conclusion we can draw is trained athletes are more elastic advantages than those who aren't. It's also quite a small sample as well to draw anything genuine. I sometimes find some Psychologists, geneticists and sports scientists a tad race obsessed (despite the fcat you can't really have genuine scientific criteria) and that infulences their work and conclusions, they are so keen to look a differences in race they introduce flaws and extra variables to try and get results that highlight the differences while actually making their work fairly worthless.

              I think Psychologists are the worst, a Guardian article a few months ago pointed out at how litter peer reviewed studies are ever able to be repeated with similar results and the number of top psychologists who have been caught fabricating results or have obviously fabricated studies is ridiculous.

              Comment

              Working...
              X