NYT report on Exponent and Deflategate

[DaBruinz]

Coming from the company who went on the record saying there is no link between second-hand smoke and cancer. Eat **** and die you corrupt scumbags

This comment feeds into this BS line of the interview:

Exponent staunchly denies that its scientific favor can be bought.

DeflateGate: NFL Hired Same Research Firm That Denied Secondhand Smoke Causes Cancer

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Who knew the scientific method involved whining to the press.

Scientific method sounds nice in the abstract but, in a world of paid experts coupled with the typical person's natural reluctance to admit error, science becomes more "faith based" than "reason based."

 

[DaBruinz]

BTW.. Best part about that Times article? No Comments Section.. because they'd have been blasted by thousands of people showing them to be full of garbage.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

This comment feeds into this BS line of the interview:



DeflateGate: NFL Hired Same Research Firm That Denied Secondhand Smoke Causes Cancer

Gee really? I was expecting them to say something along the lines of "we're a bunch of whores who will testify that the sky is green if you pay us enough."

 

[BradyFTW!]

You don't even have to look that closely anymore to realize that the NYT is just a straight-up propaganda rag.

After this election cycle, I dunno who's disagreeing with that assessment on either side of the political aisle.

 

[Dr Pain]

[email protected]

http://www.exponent.com/professionals/p/pye-john-d

[email protected]

http://www.exponent.com/professionals/s/steffey-duane-l

[email protected]

http://www.exponent.com/professionals/g/ganot-gabriel-s

[email protected]

http://www.exponent.com/professionals/c/caligiuri-robert-d

Why not ask them yourself, here are their emails and bios.

 

[NashuaPats]

An example:


The complaints were that you did it wrong! That your spraying it lightly with water every few minutes did not accurately simulate the real life conditions. No one is saying you didn't try to take it into account. They were saying you did it incorrectly. Where's your response to that?

Their experiments were completely disingenuous. That rain test proves it. They were trying to simulate the effects of rain by spraying it? What about the ball rolling on the wet grass with people landing on it? It's so stupid. Everyone knows that if you walk into the rain for 30 seconds you are going to be a little damp. However, if during those 30 seconds, you fall to the ground and roll around, you are going to be thoroughly soaked.

Their whole report is full of this kind of disengenously failed logic.

 

[AtomicDawg]

Key point: "[T]he story ...includes zero explanation from Exponent on the specific criticism [by MIT and other Professors]

So basically they write off all their critics as looney. Bizarre. It reads like a damn Exponent infomercial.

Of course Mike Hurley is on it:

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Scientific method sounds nice in the abstract but, in a world of paid experts coupled with the typical person's natural reluctance to admit error, science becomes more "faith based" than "reason based."

Shoot, that happens *outside* of the world of paid experts more than anyone would like to admit. Most scientists have been the smartest person in the room their entire lives. Some (certainly nowhere near all of them) develop massive egos because of it - similar to how certain athletes get massive egos because they're coddled their whole lives. For that group of scientists, being told they are wrong is akin to someone calling them stupid, and they will irrationally defend themselves out of spite. Look at the petty feud that existed between Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz over who invented calculus, as an example.

 

[mihap]

Here is the reason for the article
Exponent still receives emails from adamant critics, and its role in Deflategate has cost it several prospective clients, the company said. At least one in the Northeast told Exponent that it could not risk its own credibility by being associated with the company behind the controversial Deflategate science.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

On top of that they had one of their studies kicked out of court.

I'll link it later.

Don't forget that in addition to the second hand smoke crap, they tried to show that asbestos doesn't cause mesothelioma....... The fact that Ford ( maker of brakes with asbestos) was paying the bill..I'm sure that didn't factor in..NOT
Ford spent $40 million to reshape asbestos science

This was a high profile case and for probably the first time lots of people reviewed their work on Deflategate and called them out and they are upset. Boo Hoo.....

 

[realtime]

Their experiments were completely disingenuous. That rain test proves it. They were trying to simulate the effects of rain by spraying it? What about the ball rolling on the wet grass with people landing on it? It's so stupid. Everyone knows that if you walk into the rain for 30 seconds you are going to be a little damp. However, if during those 30 seconds, you fall to the ground and roll around, you are going to be thoroughly soaked.

Their whole report is full of this kind of disengenously failed logic.

I hope you can think of a better example than this. Obviously the majority of the Patriots balls were NOT rolling in the wet grass with people landing on them.

 

[sieglo]

NYT is a rag with no credibility. Anyone who believes what they read there is a fool.

 

[zydecochris]

Yet not one of them asked themselves why, if the Patriots deflated the balls, even their dubious science only proved the balls were about 0.2 less than they should be.

I couldn't read too much of the article. Did it explain that of 21 independent reports, none of them would support Exponent's claims?

NYT clearly in the NFL's pocket.

You know, this is really, really weird. The NYT wrote this about Deflategate: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/s...-science-at-new-england-patriots-expense.html

And this on Deflategate: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/s...-science-at-new-england-patriots-expense.html

And, most dam*ing of all, this on the NFL and concussions: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/sports/football/nfl-concussion-research-tobacco.html?_r=1

The NFL absolutely screamed bloody murder after the concussion article. And now this silly non-scientific puff piece on Exponent? The NFL is a very, very powerful organization worth many, many times that of the NYT. I think that calls must have been made to the NYT owners from the NFL to back off.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

NYT is a rag with no credibility. Anyone who believes what they read there is a fool.

Separate issue, but recent polling shows that most people don't find the main stream media credible anymore.

 

[NashuaPats]

I hope you can think of a better example than this. Obviously the majority of the Patriots balls were NOT rolling in the wet grass with people landing on them.

Which is why the psi measurements per football varied the way they did. There were a few balls that were several tenths lower than the others. The psi levels of the footballs were entirely predictable and that includes a few of the balls being affected by the wet field conditions.

 

[IllegalContact]

Meh........sounds like chumps trying to still convince people that the world is flat.....

they put a ton of thought into being refuted..........if it was legit, no such thought would be needed

it over, Johnny........time to watch football

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

You know, this is really, really weird. The NYT wrote this about Deflategate: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/s...-science-at-new-england-patriots-expense.html

And this on Deflategate: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/s...-science-at-new-england-patriots-expense.html

And, most dam*ing of all, this on the NFL and concussions: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/sports/football/nfl-concussion-research-tobacco.html?_r=1

The NFL absolutely screamed bloody murder after the concussion article. And now this silly non-scientific puff piece on Exponent? The NFL is a very, very powerful organization worth many, many times that of the NYT. I think that calls must have been made to the NYT owners from the NFL to back off.

The NYT is broke and failing. I'm amazed that they're even still in business given their drastic reduction in revenue since the internet couple with their huge pension obligations.

The NYT is like a single mother in Tijuana. They need to become hookers simply to survive.

 

[zydecochris]

The NYT is broke and failing. I'm amazed that they're even still in business given their drastic reduction in revenue since the internet couple with their huge pension obligations.

The NYT is like a single mother in Tijuana. They need to become hookers simply to survive.

That is a shame.

 

[Koma]

Key point: "[T]he story ...includes zero explanation from Exponent on the specific criticism [by MIT and other Professors]

So basically they write off all their critics as looney. Bizarre. It reads like a damn Exponent infomercial.

Of course Mike Hurley is on it:

Hurley does a good job examining what the Exponent guys said and didn't say (like no responses to the specific issues found with their experiments), but I also found his background info on the NYT writer interesting. In an upset, the Times writer hates the Patriots and thinks they cheat all the time.