NYT report on Exponent and Deflategate

[The Brandon Five]

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.

I've been commenting. It's about 50/50.

 

[AtomicDawg]

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.

This is what you might be referring to...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

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.

NYT, hotbed of agenda journalism

 

[Fencer]

NYT clearly in the NFL's pocket.

Not the most likely explanation.

Rather, I'd say that the NYT was offered exclusive access to break the news of what Exponent is claiming, so they did just that -- they broke the news of what Exponent is claiming.

There have been other articles or columns in the NYT that give the NFL less joy, and there probably will be again.

 

[Fencer]

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.

I disagree, as follows:

• Many NYT articles are correctly subject to that criticism ...
• ... but the number of articles in which they try hard to get things right is also non-trivial.

 

[zydecochris]

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."

You are welcome of course to your opinion, but please don't confuse the work by firms like Exponent with how real peer-reviewed science works, a nice little explanation is provided at: Scrutinizing science: Peer review
The entire premise of peer-reviewed science is that you end up being second guessed again and again by experts in the field. You submit an article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and other experts in the field essentially try to tear it apart (and believe me, they can be brutal, you have to develop a thick skin), and fact-check and make sure the science is correct. If you are making a controversial claim, other scientists try to rip you to shreds (you should see what Einstein was subjected to). That is peer-reviewed science. It isn't like you can make an unchallenged claim (like in politics) everything gets checked and rechecked and second guessed and third guessed.

Conversely, Exponent appears to consist of some former scientists that have sold their souls to the Devil, and will essentially use plausible sounding (to a non-scientist) pseudo-science to arrive at the results that they are being paid for, whether it be that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer or the Deflategate nonsense. It is about as far from peer reviewed science as you can get, and the silly results were immediately debunked by every reputable scientist in ways I won't go over again here.

IMHO that is why the NFL was so surprised that they couldn't tell NIH how to do their concussion studies (and they pulled their funding), they were used to hack firms like Exponent instead of real scientists like at NIH, see: NFL tried to influence ‘unrestricted’ research gift, Congressional report says.

 

[bresna]

Here's the money quote:

"Caligiuri passed along the basics: The Patriots’ footballs were thought to be pumped up to about 12.5 p.s.i. before the game, the Colts’ balls at 13 p.s.i. The halftime readings were much lower and varied. The temperature outside was 48 degrees. It was known that the balls were tested at halftime inside, at room temperature: 11 Patriots balls but only four Colts balls, because officials ran out of time. The referee had two gauges, and one was way off."

Their whole ironclad case rests on this completely unfounded assumption.

100% correct!! Watch the NFL referees "prepare" the footballs for a game and note well where the ref says quite clearly "Close enough":

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

You are welcome of course to your opinion, but please don't confuse the work by firms like Exponent with how real peer-reviewed science works, a nice little explanation is provided at: Scrutinizing science: Peer review
The entire premise of peer-reviewed science is that you end up being second guessed again and again by experts in the field. You submit an article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and other experts in the field essentially try to tear it apart (and believe me, they can be brutal, you have to develop a thick skin), and fact-check and make sure the science is correct. If you are making a controversial claim, other scientists try to rip you to shreds (you should see what Einstein was subjected to). That is peer-reviewed science. It isn't like you can make an unchallenged claim (like in politics) everything gets checked and rechecked and second guessed and third guessed.

Conversely, Exponent appears to consist of some former scientists that have sold their souls to the Devil, and will essentially use plausible sounding (to a non-scientist) pseudo-science to arrive at the results that they are being paid for, whether it be that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer or the Deflategate nonsense. It is about as far from peer reviewed science as you can get, and the silly results were immediately debunked by every reputable scientist in ways I won't go over again here.

IMHO that is why the NFL was so surprised that they couldn't tell NIH how to do their concussion studies (and they pulled their funding), they were used to hack firms like Exponent instead of real scientists like at NIH, see: NFL tried to influence ‘unrestricted’ research gift, Congressional report says.

When there are jobs, reputations, and grant money on the line, I tend to be skeptical of "experts" but I try not to be cynical.

Science is just like any other human endeavor, however noble the initial intentions are the results tend to get clowned up by human folly.

 

[Tony2046]

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.....

Here's an article from Jerry Thornton regarding Exponent from a year ago.

WELLS REPORT ‘SCIENCE’ FIRM EXPONENT GETS WHACKED BY COURT ORDER

Wells Report ‘science’ firm Exponent gets whacked by court order

Well in this particular case Exponent is involved in, presiding Judge Stephen A. Stobbs has has had just about enough of their monkeyshines. The following are direct quotes from his court order, dated June 2, 2015:

• “On May 11, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents contained on Exponent, Inc.’s Privilege Log … within seven (7) days of the Court’s Order. Exponent has failed to comply with this Order and had indicated that it will continue to disregard this Court’s May 11 order.”
• “[T]he Court cannot allow Exponent to stand in violation of a valid Court Order compelling the production of documents.”
• “Methodologically sound science has nothing to fear from full and open disclosure.”
• “[T]he Court finds that Exponent’s refusal to comply with its May 11, 2015 Order is unreasonable and evidence of deliberate disregard for the court’s authority.”

Judge Stobbs then goes on to order Exponent to pay the Plaintiff’s legal fees, produce the documents in question and pay a thousand dollar fine for each day it fails to comply.

Btw: The next time a woman asks me how big my "feet" are I know which ruler I'm using.

 

[zydecochris]

When there are jobs, reputations, and grant money on the line, I tend to be skeptical of "experts" but I try not to be cynical.

Science is just like any other human endeavor, however noble the initial intentions are the results tend to get clowned up by human folly.

You are correct that anytime there is money (grant or otherwise) at stake, it can be corrupting. I just wanted to point out that with peer review science there is a system of checks and balances to verify and re-verify results, unlike politics for example, where unsubstantiated claims are routinely made by both parties.

 

[raduray]

A puff piece. I already posted my comment.

http://tinyurl.com/zzc37rm

Just like a puff pastry, this story is full of holes.

 

[aluminum seats]

Puff piece props up the NFL’s scientific hired gun that brought down Tom Brady

Good for Florio. Calls the article "baloney." He probably would have used a different word if he could.

 

[Tony2046]

Here you go Roger. You F'ing lose.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

For Exponent, this is a case of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it." It looks to me like this has backfired. Awwwwww....

There are now over 250 "Comments" on the article, which break down roughly as:
65% saying that the article is nonsense and attacking the NFL.
25% supporting it and attacking the Patriots
10% saying the whole thing is a waste of time.

Go there and post. Be rational and polite, but post your comment. I don't know if you have to be a subscriber, but I have done so.

 

[Danger Zone]

Can anyone think of a scientist that's come out and said Exponent got it right?

 

[Joker]

Roger's mangina is bleeding profusely the past few weeks. Maybe he can stuff this NYT trash paper up in there and overdose on Midol.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I disagree, as follows:

• Many NYT articles are correctly subject to that criticism ...
• ... but the number of articles in which they try hard to get things right is also non-trivial.

That's your standard for credibility? As long as they sometimes try to get things right, they're fine?

 

[SVN]

Puff piece props up the NFL’s scientific hired gun that brought down Tom Brady

Florio at least rips the report

 

[Ring 6]

This quote is the one that really tells the story

“The thing that I wanted to make sure came out when we were no longer quiet was that there’s real science here,” Pye said. “There’s real engineering. We didn’t start from feelings. We started from facts — the facts that we had, which were complete to the degree that they were complete. And we took those as far as we thought science and engineering could take them. And then presented that.”

This was not science. It was an experiment based upon assumptions.
They admitted to not know the timing of the halftime measurements.
They admitted there were no pregame measurements, and instead assumed every single football was exactly the same psi.
They had no idea what the temperature in the lockerroom was. Think about that one for a moment. We are using IGL to determine how much footballs estimated to measure inside at a certain unverified psi at a certain, wildly guessed temperature, would measure after being outside in a temperature that is also (reasonably fairly) estimated then brought in and warmed at a guessed at unverified temperature (which happened to be different than the one they used pre-game) for a guessed at amount of time, and with all of those assumptions you cannot verify that the drop was due to conditions UNLESS YOU CHANGE ONE OF THE ASSUMPTIONS.

Exponent didn't prove anything or disprove anything, and couldn't because they were assuming things that were not certain.

 

[Dorito Dink]

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.

How ironic. A "firm" conducts experiments using junk science and makes every possible assumption go against the defendant to justify their client's predetermined guilty conclusion so you can get a fat payday only to have it blow up in their faces and inevitably lose business.

Maybe sometimes justice and karma do prevail.