t**o
发帖数: 620 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Olympics 讨论区 】
发信人: jianglai (Veni, Vidi, Vici.), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 02:54:30 2012, 美东)
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspic
英帝堕落到什么地步了。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.3.1 | g**8
发帖数: 4951 | 2 这个JIANGLAI网友在那个NATURE文章下的跟帖写得实在是太好了，真的应该让更多的人
都来看到，揭穿现在这个所谓“罗切特比较“的伪科学鼓噪。那个牛人应该把自己的英
文原作发表同时再写个中文版让更多的人看到了解”罗切特比较“的伪科学。
Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are
four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (
28.93 sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec)and
Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the
last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I
were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying
to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion,we should
assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the
public how science works.
===============
我这里试着翻译那位JIANGLAI牛人雄文的一个段落：（原文段落如上）我觉得这段里的
逻辑和驳斥最为有力：
=========
（翻译：稍加佐料：-）原文作者老大或者其他网友觉得个别地方加得不妥而与原文有
异，请自行修改）
。。。
第四点：另一个“摘樱桃"般刻意选择性摘取数据的例子是，在本届奥运四百米混合泳
男子决赛中，至少有四名其他男选手在最后50米的区段时间上用时少于罗切特的29.10
秒，也少于现在因此就被无辜质疑的叶诗文选手。他们分别是：日本选手萩野（28.52
秒),美国选手菲尔普斯（28.44秒），日本选手堀畑（27.87秒）和澳大利亚选手佛雷瑟
霍尔姆斯（28.35秒）。原来，如果我们只是看这400米混合泳最后50米的区段成绩，罗
切特的成绩远非最好。事实上，如上文所提，罗切特因领先优势过大而为保持后续比赛
体力，当时刻意，甚至近乎怠慢地放慢了速度，也使得他在最后50米区隔段的成绩，仅
排同场第五而已。如果我是原报道作者，如果我有起码的逻辑和诚实认真的态度，我绝
不会一定要拿罗切特相对来说慢得多的最后50米区段成绩作为样板去和叶诗文选手的成
绩比较，更不会由此进而制造现在这样夸大和故弄玄虚的鼓噪。作者这里所展现的，是
怎样一种所谓科学的逻辑和论调呢？难道所谓的逻辑只是基于罗切特选手是整场比赛的
冠军，那么我们就得必须假定他在每一个时间区段上的成绩都应该是最出色权威的，而
如果有一个女选手刚好比他在同一最小时间区隔内快就是作假？哪怕即使在同场比赛中
，至少有其他四位男选手都要远远好于他的这一最小时间区隔段的成绩，更远远好于被
无辜受到质疑的叶诗文选手的这一区段成绩？
这样的逻辑，将会是一种十分糟糕和愚昧的误导，会使大众对科学丧失最起码的正常思
考的能力，如果作者不是有意为之的话。
====================
(“佐料添加”optional:-)
做为科学界最为权威的期刊《自然》杂志网站，绝不应该如此不专业地被一个业余游泳
教练JOHN LEONARD的完全伪科学的刻意“罗切特比较“所左右而发表如此业余的文章。
================ | m**********n
发帖数: 1271 | | l*****2
发帖数: 799 | | o*******e
发帖数: 69 | 5 文学城体育看台的老网友写的也很棒！转在这儿：
Echt Warsteiner said:
Congratulations, Nature! Mr. Callaway has single-handedly helped your smooth
transformation from prestigious scientific landmark towards a brand new
tabloid, successfully. Instead of "International Journal of Science", now
you are busy with rumors and second-guessing, and backed up by strong
conviction – I don't have any proof, as a matter of fact, all official
testing result just proven my suspicion unfounded and completely wrong, but
I don't care about truth. I just stay firm on my belief, those Chinese are
cheaters.
Half truth is sometimes a lot worse and deliberately misleading than a whole
lie. For instance, the headline – Ye is faster than the fastest man in her
last 50M. How wrong could that be? If I hear that I would immediately raise
the same question as well, is Ye clean? However, as we all know now, that
50M from that supposedly fastest man Lochte, was a completely slowed down
cruising to his gold medal, which only ranked 5th in the same race.
As if put the word "scientific" in front of your profiling, makes all the
consistent accusation without proof, or even proven to be wrong, "scientific
". Thorpe smashed his own record by 8 seconds at age of 15; Phelps improved
his own record by 4 seconds at age of 15; Rice even shortened her own record
by 6 second; Missy Franklin won gold only 13 minutes after her exhausting
200 free semi; Ruta Meilutyte came out of nowhere and jumped from 14th place
in the world to Olympic gold. Those were all exceptional and dramatic
improvement achievements, in other words "incredible" or "unbelievable". But
those data would not trigger your "scientific" profiling, because they don'
t pass the MOST important criteria – China. As American hero Carl Lewis put
it clearly, "Who cares I failed drug tests?". Exactly, he's no Chinese.
Mr. Callaway, thank you for being honest with us on the end. As you sited
>"Tucker says. 'When we look at this young swimmer from China who breaks a
world record, thatâ#8482;s not proof of anything. It asks a question
or two.'" How generous and kind of you? You don't have proof, but you
just have suspicions, IF you are Chinese, and if you do well. Something must
be wrong. Even vigorous test results were published before and after the
race, and ten times more in the past 2 years, proved Ye is clean, "we" still
don't buy it.
After all, your scientific profiling just consists of five simple letters –
C-H-I-N-A.
When my wife published a paper on Nature many years ago, she was excited and
proud, and I was proud of her as well, because I felt that was the real
recognition of her achievement. Now, I just realized, it's really not that
hard, anti-China will just do the trick.
It's election year, normally it's time for politicians to step up the China
bashing game. It's not only politically correct, but also fashionable to
blame China on everything and anything. Better yet, accusing China or
Chinese is the easiest job, because you don't need any proof, "red commie
China" is automatically associated with any evil doings. Chinese won't get
onto the street, and Chinese won't get TV time to say they are offended.
More importantly, Chinese won't get organized to affect any voting
meaningfully.
Why should Nature shy away from the party? Where do I sign up to celebrate
Nature's new-found territory? | t**o
发帖数: 620 | 6 nice one!
smooth
but
【在 o*******e 的大作中提到】
: 文学城体育看台的老网友写的也很棒！转在这儿：
: Echt Warsteiner said:
: Congratulations, Nature! Mr. Callaway has single-handedly helped your smooth
: transformation from prestigious scientific landmark towards a brand new
: tabloid, successfully. Instead of "International Journal of Science", now
: you are busy with rumors and second-guessing, and backed up by strong
: conviction – I don't have any proof, as a matter of fact, all official
: testing result just proven my suspicion unfounded and completely wrong, but
: I don't care about truth. I just stay firm on my belief, those Chinese are
: cheaters.
| o*******e
发帖数: 69 | 7 They are still keeping on deleting any reasonable and logical comments
including Jiang Lai's and sth like this one. It's really disgusting!!!!
All these deeds have already beyond article content itself, but sth related
to racism. | e***d
发帖数: 8248 | 8 Sore losers can't handle tough cases like this.
And this summer grapes go sourer.
related
【在 o*******e 的大作中提到】
: They are still keeping on deleting any reasonable and logical comments
: including Jiang Lai's and sth like this one. It's really disgusting!!!!
: All these deeds have already beyond article content itself, but sth related
: to racism.
|
|
