Do the Patriots win Super Bowl 49 without the Deflategate controversy?

[PatsFanSince74]

Here, a basic principle of Symbolic Logic is actually helpful in illuminating the futility of asking the question posed in the thread topic: From a false premise any conclusion can follow and, taken with the premise, will comprise a logically true statement.

Therefore, both of these statements are logically true:
Since Deflategate did not occur, the Patriots won the SB.
Since Deflategate did not occur, the Patriots lost the SB.

In other words, "Who the **** knows?"

 

[Bruins29]

Here, a basic principle of Symbolic Logic is actually helpful in illuminating the futility of asking the question posed in the thread topic: From a false premise any conclusion can follow and, taken with the premise, will comprise a logically true statement.

Therefore, both of these statements are logically true:
Since Deflategate did not occur, the Patriots won the SB.
Since Deflategate did not occur, the Patriots lost the SB.

In other words, "Who the **** knows?"

Actually, that was not what he was really asking. It was not a probability exercise. It was a hypothesis that a bunch of crap, written about the team, across the country, during their playoff run, right before the most important games of their lives, may have given them a bit of extra motivation to win.

Being a former athlete, I can say with confidence that something like that would have fueled me.

TB's comments right before the SB were telling.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Actually, that was not what he was really asking. It was not a probability exercise. It was a hypothesis that a bunch of crap, written about the team, across the country, during their playoff run, right before the most important games of their lives, may have given them a bit of extra motivation to win.

Being a former athlete, I can say with confidence that something like that would have fueled me.

TB's comments right before the SB were telling.

No, the question is posed quite clearly both in the topic line and in the OP's comments in the body of his post: "on the one hand, I think the Patriots were certainly playing this game knowing their legacy was on the line; on the other hand, it was the Super Bowl, so can you really argue that they would have played any differently?"

In other words, taking a view on the validity of the statement that "a hypothesis that a bunch of crap, written about the team, across the country, during their playoff run, right before the most important games of their lives, may have given them a bit of extra motivation to win" is a "probability exercise."

Your comment as to how it would have affected you is a fair one, since only you can know that.

And, yes, I did read TB's comments before the game and agree that they were "telling." But whether the motivation that they suggested that he felt made the difference between winning and losing is unknowable. The question that was posed was whether they win the game without Deflategate. That is unknowable and anything any of us think is, therefore, correct.

 

[Bruins29]

No, the question is posed quite clearly both in the topic line and in the OP's comments in the body of his post: "on the one hand, I think the Patriots were certainly playing this game knowing their legacy was on the line; on the other hand, it was the Super Bowl, so can you really argue that they would have played any differently?"

In other words, taking a view on the validity of the statement that "a hypothesis that a bunch of crap, written about the team, across the country, during their playoff run, right before the most important games of their lives, may have given them a bit of extra motivation to win" is a "probability exercise."

Your comment as to how it would have affected you is a fair one, since only you can know that.

And, yes, I did read TB's comments before the game and agree that they were "telling." But whether the motivation that they suggested that he felt made the difference between winning and losing is unknowable.

I agree there is no way to prove anything and how I feel about something and this team is also not always the same. But, its an interesting thread with I think a pretty reasonable answer that it probably diddnt hurt that the teams accomplishments and credibility were coming under fire right then.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I agree there is no way to prove anything and how I feel about something and this team is also not always the same. But, its an interesting thread with I think a pretty reasonable answer that it probably diddnt hurt that the teams accomplishments and credibility were coming under fire right then.

there we agree.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

No, the question is posed quite clearly both in the topic line and in the OP's comments in the body of his post: "on the one hand, I think the Patriots were certainly playing this game knowing their legacy was on the line; on the other hand, it was the Super Bowl, so can you really argue that they would have played any differently?"

In other words, taking a view on the validity of the statement that "a hypothesis that a bunch of crap, written about the team, across the country, during their playoff run, right before the most important games of their lives, may have given them a bit of extra motivation to win" is a "probability exercise."

Your comment as to how it would have affected you is a fair one, since only you can know that.

And, yes, I did read TB's comments before the game and agree that they were "telling." But whether the motivation that they suggested that he felt made the difference between winning and losing is unknowable. The question that was posed was whether they win the game without Deflategate. That is unknowable and anything any of us think is, therefore, correct.

So just to clarify, you would never participate in any hypothetical question, nor would you ever make a comment like "we would have won if Gronk were healthy" or any statement along those lines? Because your logical proof applies to all of those scenarios, and I would hate to think you are being a hypocrite in attacking this thread for no apparent good reason.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

So just to clarify, you would never participate in any hypothetical question, nor would you ever make a comment like "we would have won if Gronk were healthy" or any statement along those lines? Because your logical proof applies to all of those scenarios, and I would hate to think you are being a hypocrite in attacking this thread for no apparent good reason.

Whoa! Using a word like "hypocrite" and construing my comment as "attacking" the thread is way off base. The thread posed a question, to which the opening post suggested the answer was open. In that spirit, I gave a response.

But, to answer your question and take it seriously, yes, the logic does hold (and, BTW, it's not "my" logic, but rather a tiny part of a systematic logical framework that has been around for a couple millennia and expounded by minds far greater than mine). Sometimes, it actually has practical applications.

Here's the point. If we're speculating on an outcome based on a circumstance that did not occur, yes, we are always dealing with the unknowable. Positing the unknowable as a premise creates a situation in which anything that follows from the premise, when considered together with the premise, forms a statement that, by the rules of logic, is always a "True" statement.

The practical implication of this is that the logical answer to the posited question or any similar question is, by definition, "Maybe. Maybe not." If that's "attacking" and I'm some kind of a "hypocrite" then, I'm guilty as charged.

As Bruins29 and I ultimately agreed (after his very thoughtful initial comment on my post and our subsequent exchange about it above) it does make for what many would consider to be an interesting discussion. But, ultimately we're dealing with what is unknowable.

Would the Pats have won XLVI if Gronk had been healthy? "Maybe. Maybe not." That could be an interesting discussion, but, the answer is ultimately unknowable and demands speculation. Does that mean we don't engage in it? No. Does it mean that I, speaking personally, don't think it's worth spending a lot of time on it? Yes, but I wouldn't demean others who do so extensively engage (and certainly wouldn't call them names).

Would the Seahawks have won XLIX if Avril had not left the game? Or if several other members of the D weren't playing hurt? "Maybe. Maybe not." Another discussion of what is unknowable, which many could find interesting but on which I'm not interested in spending a lot of time.

That's my point, no more. No less.

 

[Joker]

The Patriots won the Super bowl...this thread sucks...BOTH FACTS. Stick that in your hypodermic and thetical the needle in your forebrain.

 

[Tunescribe]

Okay, not really a thread about Deflategate, so much as the effect it had on the players. I go back and forth; on the one hand, I think the Patriots were certainly playing this game knowing their legacy was on the line; on the other hand, it was the Super Bowl, so can you really argue that they would have played any differently?

Vegas did not adjust the spread at all based on the BS "scandal." So, apparently they don't believe there is truly any advantage to perceived extra motivation, and the game is decided by execution only.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I have thoughts. Plenty of them every day. Sometimes, too many at a time. That can get really irritating.

 

[Joker]

Water is wet...now just SUPPOSE, you know, hypothetically speaking, that water is dry...you SEE?...therefore the Patriots lost the Super Bowl, are losers and all of you better STOP INSULTING MY HYPOTHETICALS!!!!

 

[PatsDeb]

YES, definitely!

 

[Tunescribe]

Water is wet...now just SUPPOSE, you know, hypothetically speaking, that water is dry...you SEE?...therefore the Patriots lost the Super Bowl, are losers and all of you better STOP INSULTING MY HYPOTHETICALS!!!!

(1) The Holocaust never happened.
(2) The 1969 moon landing was staged in a movie studio.
(3) The Patriots didn't win Super Bowl 49, Seattle lost it. The Patriots cheated to get there anyway, so it doesn't count.
(4) Bruce Jenner is a woman. Oh, wait!

 

[SammyBlueCat]

The "deflate-gate" did not help. A friend of mine started the following thread on another web site:
(We live in Tacoma WA)

Dennis xxxxxxx

January 31 at 11:06pm · Edited ·

Just watched NFL HONORS, if that isn't fuel for the Seahawks I don't know what is! Not one player won an award.

Like · Share

4 people like this.

Mike xxxxxxxx That because the Hawks are way above Roger Goodell and the NFL. It doesn't matter what NFL awards them with.

The Seahawks are the best team athletically and morally on and off the field bar none.

Go Hawks

January 31 at 11:22pm · Like · 2

Bill xxxxxxxxxxx NFL just did the Seahawks a GREAT favor, inadvertently. Powerful motivation to rub detractors noses in their awesomness!

January 31 at 11:33pm · Like · 1

The Seahawks were not helped...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Water is wet...now just SUPPOSE, you know, hypothetically speaking, that water is dry...you SEE?...therefore the Patriots lost the Super Bowl, are losers and all of you better STOP INSULTING MY HYPOTHETICALS!!!!

"Water is dry, therefore the Patriots have won every Super Bowl since SB I." That's a logically true statement, so...as usual...YOU ARE RIGHT! Joker rocks.

 

[brdmaverick]

C'mon, the Patriots didn't win because of deflategate. I mean, it's evident that sometimes in a regular season game one team just 'brings it' or 'suffers a letdown'. But c'mon, it's the BLEEPIN SUPER BOWL, BOTH teams are bringing it with or without DEFLATE GATE.

Brady's hunger would not be any less without Defaltegate.

Butler did not intercept that ball because of Defaltegate.


The Pats won the game, but not because of Deflate Gate.

 

[neuronet]

Here, a basic principle of Symbolic Logic is actually helpful in illuminating the futility of asking the question posed in the thread topic: From a false premise any conclusion can follow and, taken with the premise, will comprise a logically true statement.

Therefore, both of these statements are logically true:
Since Deflategate did not occur, the Patriots won the SB.
Since Deflategate did not occur, the Patriots lost the SB.

In other words, "Who the **** knows?"

But then all counterfactual reasoning would be futile, which is absurd. You've pointed out a problem with the material conditional, not with the thread...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

But then all counterfactual reasoning would be futile, which is absurd. You've pointed out a problem with the material conditional, not with the thread...

I went into that at length in #27 above.

In a nutshell, I suggest that people can speculate, as the thread requests, about the impact of events that did not happen all they want (What if Gronk had been healthy for XLVI? What if the Seattle D had been healthy and Avril hadn't been knocked out of XLIX?), but the evaluation of a an answer stating an hypothesized outcome that result from events that did not occur always has to be "Maybe. Maybe Not," since anything can be true.

That's just not something on which I, personally, am interested in spending a lot of time, but if people want to speculate on outcomes given the unknowable impact of an event that did not occur (either of the above examples or the absence of the "Deflategate Controversy," as the thread title has it), then go for it!