- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 7,939
- Reaction score
- 16,946
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
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.
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.
No kidding, idiot, that's why I already posted that link!Puff piece props up the NFL’s scientific hired gun that brought down Tom Brady
Florio at least rips the report
Sorry didnt see your post. Thanks for the nice words.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.
Well, they might...What is the difference between an Exponent Scientist and a whore? Nobel winners don't tell whores they are incompetent
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.
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
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.
Etc.
- 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.
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.
Well its lost about 15% of its value since July and has been flat for the last 2 months.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
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.
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.
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...Can anyone think of a scientist that's come out and said Exponent got it right?
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.
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.
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...