NYT report on Exponent and Deflategate

[QuantumMechanic]

Not that I mind, of course, but what the heck did Roger/NFL do to Florio, anyways?

Seems odd for a Squealers honk to go after this so hard for so long.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

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.

That's a beautiful take by Florio. Here's an important point though:

The latest Times article fails to point out two of the biggest problems with Exponent’s work in #DeflateGate: (1) the decision to reject referees Walt Anderson’s best recollection regarding which of two conflicting gauges were used to set the air pressure of the Patriots’ balls prior to kickoff; and (2) the reality that the combination of tampering plus the operation of the Ideal Gas Law would have resulted in much lower PSI measurements.

The problem here is that Exponent would say that's not their responsibility. They were told to investigate using assumption #1, and so they did that. And that's one of the reasons they're willing to stand by their work.

One flaw with the science community is that there is no official code of ethics. There's the peer-review system which zydecochris mentions which is great, but there's no formal need to follow that. One could be shunned, given a bad reputation, etc., but on the other hand there could be no repercussion at all.

Contrast that to other communities, like the actuarial profession I'm a part of (heavy statistics and finance analysis for those who don't know). Everything we do is based on assumptions. We have a code of ethics that includes using reasonable assumptions. Sometimes we don't get a say in the assumptions; our code of ethics say that if we're required by law/regulation to use another assumption, we state that's why we used it. If our client forces us to use an assumption, we need to opine on whether those assumptions are reasonable. If we don't do any of that - or if we say they're reasonable and they're clearly not - there is a disciplinary board that can take action, up to and including expulsion from the actuarial profession altogether. This stuff is that important.

I would never walk around and say my work is 100% correct when faced with those types of questions. I would say something like, "My results are reasonable given these sets of assumptions. If it turns out these assumptions aren't correct, we will revisit this as appropriate." Yet Exponent isn't saying that. That's the value of being part of a profession with general standards instead of one where you obtain your Ph.D. and you're done.

 

[Dr Pain]

What is the difference between an Exponent Scientist and a whore? Nobel winners don't tell whores they are incompetent

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Not that I mind, of course, but what the heck did Roger/NFL do to Florio, anyways?

Seems odd for a Squealers honk to go after this so hard for so long.

Florio is sort of a TMZ-type of guy - that clickbait philosophy helped get his websites the clicks anyway. But that said, my two theories:

1) he does feel the need to prove himself as a legitimate journalist and not just a former attorney who turned his hobby into a job. He's had national exposure for a while and I think not being viewed like other journalists may be bothering him.

2) He's still an attorney at heart, and it was the legal aspects of the case that drew him in. Since it was a law firm that hired the science consultants, it prodded him to look critically at all aspects of the case. He couldn't defend Brady as an attorney without checking out the science.

 

[aluminum seats]

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

Florio at least rips the report

No kidding, idiot, that's why I already posted that link!

Sorry, revisiting Exponent again NOW at this late date isn't helping my blood pressure.

 

[SVN]

No kidding, idiot, that's why I already posted that link!

Sorry, revisiting Exponent again NOW at this late date isn't helping my blood pressure.

Sorry didnt see your post. Thanks for the nice words.

 

[aluminum seats]

What is the difference between an Exponent Scientist and a whore? Nobel winners don't tell whores they are incompetent

Well, they might...

 

[Tony2046]

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.

Well they've done quite well since deflategate but have recently taken a hit in revenue. So it depends how you look at it I guess.

Exponent takes a hit, cuts guidance
Exponent dropped 11% after its second-quarter financials fell well short of what investors had expected to see. The engineering and scientific consulting firm saw revenue decline 3%, contributing to an 11% drop in net income. Earnings of $0.38 per share missed the consensus forecast by $0.05, and the company's environmental and health segment was hit especially hard, with sales declining 20% year over year.

Reduced spending in the oil and gas industry and mergers among industrial chemicals companies cut demand, but CEO Dr. Paul Johnston noted that the issues weren't unique to Exponent, and that he expected the company to bounce back in the long run. Traders weren't willing to be that patient, especially because Exponent reduced its 2016 guidance to project weaker revenue and operating margin for the year.


Read more: Why Interactive Brokers, Exponent, and Ryerson Holding Slumped Today -- The Motley Fool

 

[juny]

obviously exponent would say what they did. the alternative would have been to say "sorry guys we goofed" 18 months after the fact. no one wants that egg on their face.

 

[Joker]

on a related note, I am an exponent of deflating Goodell's skull.....

 

[Fencer]

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

It's an observation that informs my critical reading of their articles.

• I trust them to almost always get the fact right that they do report.
• But that's in a definition of "fact" where a quote is the fact that somebody said it, or something very close to it. To be clear ...
• ... I don't trust them, in general, to critically evaluate the credibility of what the quotee said.
• I judge articles as to whether or not they're exceptions to the previous bullet point on a case-by-case basis.

Etc.

Journalism is HARD. I could not do significantly better if I had to meet their article volume requirements. I DO do a lot better than they do on subjects we both cover, but I have a lot of advantages supporting me in my efforts that they don't.

 

[Joker]

Truth is harder...just sayin'

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's an observation that informs my critical reading of their articles.

• I trust them to almost always get the fact right that they do report.
• But that's in a definition of "fact" where a quote is the fact that somebody said it, or something very close to it. To be clear ...
• ... I don't trust them, in general, to critically evaluate the credibility of what the quotee said.
• I judge articles as to whether or not they're exceptions to the previous bullet point on a case-by-case basis.

Etc.

Journalism is HARD. I could not do significantly better if I had to meet their article volume requirements. I DO do a lot better than they do on subjects we both cover, but I have a lot of advantages supporting me in my efforts that they don't.

I actually agree with that, I guess where we disagree is in what that is worth. Yes, they can be trusted to correctly quote people - if they quote someone as having said something, then I'll comfortably assume that the person in question actually said it.

But when it comes to portraying an even reasonably objective or accurate analysis of the subject on which they're reporting, I have no faith at all that they'll even attempt to do so. Which in my book = no credibility.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Well they've done quite well since deflategate but have recently taken a hit in revenue. So it depends how you look at it I guess.

View attachment 14137

Well its lost about 15% of its value since July and has been flat for the last 2 months.

 

[lamafist]

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.

There's actually nothing at all weird about this. It's completely natural for articles both generally "positive" and "negative" about a particular entity to come from one paper.

Newspapers aren't monoliths, nor are they intended to be. There isn't any one single editor or board of editors who oversee every article published and make sure it's aligned with The Official Agenda.

Each issue is the product of ~5,000 full time employees and at least several times as many freelance or contract contributors, working under the rubric of ~16 "departments" and 32 "bureaus" each operating with a fair amount of editorial autonomy.

So the fact that NYT would publish both this article, and the ones you've cited, is actually evidence of a paper functioning as it should be.

 

[zydecochris]

Florio is sort of a TMZ-type of guy - that clickbait philosophy helped get his websites the clicks anyway. But that said, my two theories:

1) he does feel the need to prove himself as a legitimate journalist and not just a former attorney who turned his hobby into a job. He's had national exposure for a while and I think not being viewed like other journalists may be bothering him.

2) He's still an attorney at heart, and it was the legal aspects of the case that drew him in. Since it was a law firm that hired the science consultants, it prodded him to look critically at all aspects of the case. He couldn't defend Brady as an attorney without checking out the science.

I think the Deflategate Story was a perfect storm of expertise for Florio:

• He has a couple of Engineering Degrees from Carnegie Mellon, so he has a better understanding of the science than most sportswriters, he seemed to understand some of the basic physics in a way that guys like Peter King couldn't, not to mention the idiots at ESPN with their clear pro-NFL agenda.
• Plus, he has a law degree from West Virginia Law School, so he has a good understanding of the legal issues also.
• Finally, he has bundles of contacts with player agents (doubtlessly where he gets most of his information), who have little reason to love Goodell and his imperious ways.

When you combine the three, IMHO I think this story ended up being in an area where he was more knowledgable and authoritative than virtually any other sportswriter, and he ran with it to his credit.

 

[Jackson 2]

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

Yeah, Bill Nye the Science Fly...who also happens to be a Seahawks honk. He's a scientist like I'm the f####### King of England. And I don't even like mutton...

 

[Fencer]

But when it comes to portraying an even reasonably objective or accurate analysis of the subject on which they're reporting, I have no faith at all that they'll even attempt to do so. Which in my book = no credibility.

I think the overall publication has a better track record of being objective on any given subject than single articles do.

 

[zydecochris]

That's a beautiful take by Florio. Here's an important point though:

One flaw with the science community is that there is no official code of ethics. There's the peer-review system which zydecochris mentions which is great, but there's no formal need to follow that. One could be shunned, given a bad reputation, etc., but on the other hand there could be no repercussion at all.

Contrast that to other communities, like the actuarial profession I'm a part of (heavy statistics and finance analysis for those who don't know). Everything we do is based on assumptions. We have a code of ethics that includes using reasonable assumptions. Sometimes we don't get a say in the assumptions; our code of ethics say that if we're required by law/regulation to use another assumption, we state that's why we used it. If our client forces us to use an assumption, we need to opine on whether those assumptions are reasonable. If we don't do any of that - or if we say they're reasonable and they're clearly not - there is a disciplinary board that can take action, up to and including expulsion from the actuarial profession altogether. This stuff is that important.

That was well said, let me respectfully argue with you to a point. I would define a "scientist" as someone that does scientific peer-reviewed research, either by themselves or under someone else's guidance. Scientific ethics is definitely taught to graduate students (my own department has such a required course). Violating those scientific ethics (for example, by fudging or making up data) is so devastating to your scientific reputation that you can't really do science anymore, I can't think of an example where "there would be no repercussions". The "formal need" to follow the ethics is that if you lose your reputation you can't get journal articles published in peer-reviewed journals anymore, and without your cited peer-reviewed publications any grant applications you may write will have zero chance of being funded, so you have no money to do scientific research.

That said, you are correct that there is no official code of ethics similar to what you have as a Actuary, and similarly there is no real "license" that you could lose, perhaps that is a lack, I'll give you that.

Furthermore, just because someone loses their ability to be a "scientist" doesn't mean that they can't do other types of work. Like, maybe, pseudo science for some type of Law Firm that wants you to come up with a pre-determined outcome. Such as, second hand cigarette smoke does not cause cancer, or something that violates the Ideal Gas Law.

 

[Fencer]

Yeah, Bill Nye the Science Fly...who also happens to be a Seahawks honk. He's a scientist like I'm the f####### King of England. And I don't even like mutton...

I don't think even he did.

He just said early on that physics couldn't explain 2 PSI, back when the 2 PSI claim hadn't been debunked yet.