Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this specific case, I agree with Redbean. Increased HR output after age 35 is not compelling evidence of steroid use IMO.
There is, of course, tons of OTHER evidence that Bonds used steroids, but Redbean only argues the specific technical merits of specific arguments, not the big picture.
Redbean is an intelligent guy and so he knows Bonds used steroids and has never denied that, choosing instead to offer a well-crafted defense to prosecution.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but look at it this way: people like you say there is TONS of evidence. So RedBean asks for it. You list Argument A. He defeats it. You give Argument B. He defeats it. You give argument C. He defeats it, and you say, "Sure, argument C might be wrong, but there are A, B, C, so many arguments! He is obv guilty!"
Its a common tactic, just keep bringing up more and more arguments, no matter how terrible they are and no matter how often they are defeated, because it gives the impression that there must be SOMETHING there. 10 arguments can't all be wrong, and if you repeat them over and over, 40 arguments cant all be wrong! And look at the Bonds apologists, they just keep making excuses over and over again! They keep using the same tired excuses!
See where I'm going?
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with much of what you said, but saying that there is tons of evidence is not the same thing as saying there is absolute incontrovertible proof. Obviously I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bonds used steroids---especially on an interweb message board. Please keep that crucial distinction in mind.
Redbean demands absolute proof of any evidence that Bonds used steroids, but he is not held to the same standard. For example, he has made several assertions calling the Game of Shadows book into question... but he has not made a detailed, sourced, point-by-point refutation of all of the detailed, sourced, point-by-point pieces of evidence in the book. I don't demand that he does so, because this is just a flippin' internet board. But that's what he demands from anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Redbean is certainly good at calling evidence into question, but I don't agree that he has "defeated" point A, point B, point C, etc. He simple challenges the evidence as a defense attorney might. For example, he keeps referring to the GoS authors as "biased" and mentioning that the book was made "for profit," but of course, even if those assertions are true, it doesn't mean the evidence in the book is false.
And in our long, ridiculous argument about whether Bonds admitted using steroids, even the great Redbean admitted it was "highly likely" that the substance Bonds used was a steroid. His contention was simply that I could not prove to his level of satisfaction that Bonds had "knowingly admitted" using steroids.
Redbean knows Bonds used steroids, and almost every Bonds supporter on this board has said they know Bonds used steroids. They just want to argue the technicalities of whether it's been "proven" to a sufficient burden of proof by a sufficiently worthy authority. The actual argument--that Bonds used steroids--gets lost in the technicalities, semantics, and the minutiae.
Great debate tactic, but a little disingenuous IMO.
See where I'm going?
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is, its impossible to defeat your arguments if by defeat you mean disprove. I cannot PROVE that what you are saying is incorrect, because it is impossible. All I can do is discredit your arguments, which is what RedBean has done. Since he hasn't 100% disproved them, for some reason you (and I mean you in the general sense, this isn't a personal attack on you) think you can add up the 3% uncertainty here, the 5% uncertainty there, and add them all together to make a whole bunch of uncertainty. Thats not the way it works, but it does seem to convince a lot of people.
[/ QUOTE ]
Edit: I'm a little amazed that you posted this, because this is exactly Redbean's tactic. He calls evidence into question--creating a small uncertainty--and then people like you think he has "discredited" the evidence completely---when in fact, he has just cast doubt on the evidence.
A perfect example of this is Redbean's repeated statement that the feds have not been able to indict Bonds, much less convict him. The fact that Bonds has not been indicted does not in any way mean that he will never be indicted, or that there is not sufficient evidence to indict him. And yet that is the implication Redbean draws---that because Bonds has not yet been indicted, then it follows that he cannot be indicted.
Do you see how this doesn't make sense?
These are the types of arguments Redbean uses, and it is why I am amazed that he is hailed on this board as a paragon of logic.
But whatever.
|