NFL Playoffs?, Playoffs?!?!(that's not a catch, that's a catch)

[Eddie Teach]

Brady obviously deflated the footballs and grumbler helped him do it.

[dps]

It is interesting how, when you introduce the facts, what you hear from the True Believers is... *crickets*

What's the languish over/under on the number of days before the True Believers start to once again start to proselytize the One True faith, which is that
(1) the Patriots obviously deflated the footballs
(2) Brady is guilty of organizing the cheat, and
(3) people like me are lying when we say we don't believe in the One True Faith, because
(4) "Everyone knows" that 1 and 2 are true and scientific conclusions are mere "Blahblahblah"?

I'm saying seven days. 

I'm sure that if the subject comes up again, people will state their opinions, one way or the other.  In the meanwhile, to address your 4 points:

We KNOW that Patriot employees tampered with the balls--there are tapes of them discussing it.

We don't have that same level of knowledge about the extent of Brady's involvement. 

Since I can't read your mind, I don't know if what you've posted on the topic honestly represents you actual thoughts on the matter or not;  however, I don't recall anyone accusing you of lying about it.  It's been more a matter of people saying that you're wrong.

If there are "scientific conclusions" that say that the balls weren't tampered with, then in light of the fact that we know that they were tampered with, then those conclusions must be incorrect.  When science doesn't fit the facts, it's science that needs to change, not the facts.  (Though that doesn't quite apply in this case, the science itself isn't wrong, it's just being applied incorrectly.)

[grumbler]

I'm sure that if the subject comes up again, people will state their opinions, one way or the other.  In the meanwhile, to address your 4 points:

We KNOW that Patriot employees tampered with the balls--there are tapes of them discussing it.

Of course they did.  That's their job!  Every team, college, pro, and probably high school has guys who tamper with equipment.  They are called equipment managers.  No one plays with balls straight out of the carton.

We don't have that same level of knowledge about the extent of Brady's involvement. 

We have plenty of knowledge that Brady liked his footballs at the lower end of the allowed pressure.

Since I can't read your mind, I don't know if what you've posted on the topic honestly represents you actual thoughts on the matter or not;  however, I don't recall anyone accusing you of lying about it.  It's been more a matter of people saying that you're wrong.

Berkut said that

The balls were deflated, and everyone knows it. Even grumbler knows it.

That's an accusation that I was lying, because I have consistently been on the record as saying not only do I not "know" this, I don't even believe this.  Berkut is arguing that I secretly know it is true but for some reason lie and say I don't.  That's pretty common behavior among True believers; they think that the One True Faith is so self-evident that only dishonesty can account for the unbelievers.

If there are "scientific conclusions" that say that the balls weren't tampered with, then in light of the fact that we know that they were tampered with, then those conclusions must be incorrect.  When science doesn't fit the facts, it's science that needs to change, not the facts.  (Though that doesn't quite apply in this case, the science itself isn't wrong, it's just being applied incorrectly.)

Science provides the facts.  My whole point in this discussion has been to point out how people like you can argue that the facts are not a matter of science, but rather belief.  As Richard Feynman noted "reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."  You cannot ask that science and facts yield to belief.  The Catholic Church tried that with Galileo and their "victory" was a decisive defeat.

[grumbler]

Oh, and I hope everyone took the "under," because it was something like 30 minutes.

[Berkut]

I don't think you are lying, just playing your side of the game. You are a Brady fan, so you approach this from the standpoint of what you can and cannot argue, not what you actually think is likely or not likely. You are on Team Brady-Michigan, so you present Team Brady's argument. It is like a defense attorney. You don't expect them to be impartial.

You cite those "facts" and articles that support your conclusion, and pretend like it is all so very obvious, because you are trying to win an argument on the internet.

It is patently obvious that they messed with the balls, and had been doing so for a long, long time. They got caught, and did a decent snow job that all the Brady/Pats fans can use to thump their chest and climb on their crosses over, which is to be expected. It's not like there is some level of evidence that would cause the Pats fans to call for their ridiculously successful team to ever admit that there was anything at all wrong. Winning excuses just about everything, for most (but not all) fans.

It isn't really that terribly interesting. Brady and the Patriots are cheaters, and their legacy will always - justly - have that faint stink to it. Just a whiff though, since even those who despise them, rather than just finding their antics distasteful, have to admit that even absent all that cheating, they still would have won almost all of those games anyway.

[grumbler]

I don't think you are lying, just playing your side of the game. You are a Brady fan, so you approach this from the standpoint of what you can and cannot argue, not what you actually think is likely or not likely. You are on Team Brady-Michigan, so you present Team Brady's argument. It is like a defense attorney. You don't expect them to be impartial.

Nice ad hom argument.

You cite those "facts" and articles that support your conclusion, and pretend like it is all so very obvious, because you are trying to win an argument on the internet.

It is patently obvious that they messed with the balls, and had been doing so for a long, long time. They got caught, and did a decent snow job that all the Brady/Pats fans can use to thump their chest and climb on their crosses over, which is to be expected. It's not like there is some level of evidence that would cause the Pats fans to call for their ridiculously successful team to ever admit that there was anything at all wrong. Winning excuses just about everything, for most (but not all) fans.

Its patently obvious that the science, the facts, don't support the One True Faith.  When that happens, the True Believers double down, just like this.  You aren't citing evidence, you are repeating the Rosary of the One true Faith, as though repeating it enough times makes it true, no matter what the scientists say.  Faith excuses all dismissals of fact, because Faith.

It isn't really that terribly interesting. Brady and the Patriots are cheaters, and their legacy will always - justly - have that faint stink to it. Just a whiff though, since even those who despise them, rather than just finding their antics distasteful, have to admit that even absent all that cheating, they still would have won almost all of those games anyway.

So you say.  The facts say otherwise.  It is terribly interesting, because you claim in other threads to be so rational.  But when science says your Faith is wrong, you cling to The One True faith.  The New York Times is wrong.  Professors at MIT,  Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College, etc... all wrong.  Berkut is right, because Faith.  "Everyone knows" Faith.

Fascinating.  No immolation is as fascinating as self-immolation.  No one can be so fooled as the man who desperately desires to fool himself.  But Nature cannot be fooled.

[Berkut]

OK.

[Barrister]

So you say.  The facts say otherwise.  It is terribly interesting, because you claim in other threads to be so rational.  But when science says your Faith is wrong, you cling to The One True faith.  The New York Times is wrong.  Professors at MIT,  Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College, etc... all wrong.  Berkut is right, because Faith.  "Everyone knows" Faith.

Fascinating.  No immolation is as fascinating as self-immolation.  No one can be so fooled as the man who desperately desires to fool himself.  But Nature cannot be fooled.

Nice ad hom argument.

[grumbler]

So you say.  The facts say otherwise.  It is terribly interesting, because you claim in other threads to be so rational.  But when science says your Faith is wrong, you cling to The One True faith.  The New York Times is wrong.  Professors at MIT,  Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College, etc... all wrong.  Berkut is right, because Faith.  "Everyone knows" Faith.

Fascinating.  No immolation is as fascinating as self-immolation.  No one can be so fooled as the man who desperately desires to fool himself.  But Nature cannot be fooled.

Nice ad hom argument.

You might want to look up "ad hom argument" before using that phrase again.   An argument against an argument isn't an ad hom argument.  An ad hom argument is an argument against the man, not against his argument.  For instance, to say "You are a Brady fan, so you approach this from the standpoint of what you can and cannot argue, not what you actually think is likely or not likely."  This is saying that my arguments are based on who I am, not what the evidence says.  I claim that science is right and antiscience is wrong.  I am not saying that Berkut is wrong because he is Berkut, or because he is a fan of something/someone, or whatever would be an argument against the man.  I say he is wrong because his argument is contrary to the facts.

I am kinda surprised you don't know that.  You are a university grad, are you not?

[garbon]

What a pleasant exchange...

[dps]

Science provides the facts.

No, the facts exist, whether or not there's any science about them at all.  Gravity was a fact before Newton provided the science to explain it;  and when other facts were later discovered that didn't quite fit Newton's theory, Einstein provided the science to modify Newton's theory under certain conditions.  The facts that didn't fit Newton's theory weren't ignored, and certainly couldn't be changed to fit the science, so the science had to change to fit the facts.

My whole point in this discussion has been to point out how people like you can argue that the facts are not a matter of science, but rather belief.  As Richard Feynman noted "reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

Well, my argument is more "Facts don't cease to exist because they're ignored" (don't remember the source of that quote offhand).  I can't say what other "people like me" might argue because I'm not sure what "people" you're referring to.  Methodists?  Fifty-three year olds?  People who work in retail?  Not that it matters, since I'm not responsible for their arguments, just my own.  And BTW, you using that quote is deliciously ironic.

You cannot ask that science and facts yield to belief.

Well, technically you can ask, but expect the answer to be "no".    Seriously, though, I'm not asking that, so it's not really relevant.

The Catholic Church tried that with Galileo and their "victory" was a decisive defeat.

This is actually a good example, though, of what I'm talking about.  One of the reasons that the Inquisition initially "won" the case against Galileo was that the facts in evidence at the time didn't support the heliocentric theory.  For the heliocentric theory to be true, there should have been an observable stellar parallax.  There was none detected at the time, which gave the Church the excuse to stifle Galileo  Well, there is in fact an observable stellar parallax, using instrument available to us now, but not available in 1632.  Once it became possible to observe stellar parallax, the heliocentric theory triumphed over the geocentric theory.  But again, as with gravity, the facts were always there.  Geocentricism was the established scientific theory as accepted by most of the scientific community at the time of Galileo's work because it fit the facts in evidence at the time, but when additional facts were uncovered, the science had to change.

[grumbler]

No, the facts exist, whether or not there's any science about them at all.  Gravity was a fact before Newton provided the science to explain it;  and when other facts were later discovered that didn't quite fit Newton's theory, Einstein provided the science to modify Newton's theory under certain conditions.  The facts that didn't fit Newton's theory weren't ignored, and certainly couldn't be changed to fit the science, so the science had to change to fit the facts.

I don't think Einstein or Newton were ever involve in Deflategate, so your point seems moot.

Well, my argument is more "Facts don't cease to exist because they're ignored" (don't remember the source of that quote offhand).  I can't say what other "people like me" might argue because I'm not sure what "people" you're referring to.  Methodists?  Fifty-three year olds?  People who work in retail?  Not that it matters, since I'm not responsible for their arguments, just my own.  And BTW, you using that quote is deliciously ironic.

"Facts don't cease to exist because they're ignored" is not an argument, it is a tautology.  When you have an argument to make, other than the absurdity that  "When science doesn't fit the facts, it's science that needs to change, not the facts" when of course, only science can supply the facts about whether the balls were deflated below 12.5 psi, feel free to make it.  Don't try to argue that " the science itself isn't wrong, it's just being applied incorrectly" when it is your word against the word of guys applying it are winners of Nobel prizes in science or PhD physicists at Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College, etc, though.  That dog won't hunt.  And BTW Feynman was one of the great minds (and not just of science), so quoting him is not "ironic" at all.

This is actually a good example, though, of what I'm talking about.  One of the reasons that the Inquisition initially "won" the case against Galileo was that the facts in evidence at the time didn't support the heliocentric theory.  For the heliocentric theory to be true, there should have been an observable stellar parallax.  There was none detected at the time, which gave the Church the excuse to stifle Galileo  Well, there is in fact an observable stellar parallax, using instrument available to us now, but not available in 1632.  Once it became possible to observe stellar parallax, the heliocentric theory triumphed over the geocentric theory.  But again, as with gravity, the facts were always there.  Geocentricism was the established scientific theory as accepted by most of the scientific community at the time of Galileo's work because it fit the facts in evidence at the time, but when additional facts were uncovered, the science had to change.

the evidence at the time fully supported the heliocentric theory.  Your argument that only an observable stellar parallax could support it is untrue.  Observations of the motions of the planets, and observations of the moons orbiting another celestial body (not possible in the Ptolemaic model the Church was defending) were sufficient evidence to defeat the Ptolemaic model.  Geocentrism was never the established scientific theory of the time because there was no established scientific theory of the time.  There were no scientific theories at all (not even Heliocentrism was a scientific theory). 

In this case, on the other hand, there is an excellent scientific theory, the Ideal gas Law.  It has yet to be disproven.  When applied to the evidence at hand, it yields the fact that the measurements of football deflation and inflation are consistent with the New England footballs originally being at 12.5 psi and the Colts balls at 13 psi, which is exactly what they would have originally been without any illegal depressurizing.  For you to argue that this science must change or must be improperly understood by scientific experts because you think you have some unspecified "facts" that make it impossible for the evidence to be so interpreted is feeble.  You can't just argue that you are right and the scientists are wrong "just because."

[jimmy olsen]

Brady > Manning

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14778342/reaction-peyton-manning-allegations-cam-newton-press-conference-nfl

In a time of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, Johnny Manziel and Baylor University, Newton being upset that he lost a football game has received far more attention than Manning's involvement in being named in a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee alleging the university has fostered a hostile work environment for women. The lawsuit alleges that Manning -- already hounded by HGH allegations this summer -- placed his naked genitals on the face of a female athletic trainer in 1996 while she was examining him for an injury. Manning has denied that he assaulted the trainer, saying instead that he was "mooning" a teammate. And in spite of his inclusion in the lawsuit, the mainstream power machine -- the networks, the NFL itself, the media -- is reluctant or outright unwilling to add Manning to a list that in the past it has been so unworried about naming.

[Eddie Teach]

I suspect quite a few star athletes have gotten away with shit like that. Entitled jerks.

[grumbler]

Yeah, I think we have known for a while that Peyton Manning is a grade-A asshole who just pretends to be wholesome because it is worth money to him.

What I thought was most interesting was that Manning violated the very non-disclosure agreement his dad got signed by all parties when Tennessee settled the lawsuit against them by the female trainer.  He felt vindictive enough against the trainer that years later, in the autobiography he and his dad wrote, he had to bring up the episode again.  That cost him another fat settlement for defamation.

Stupid + asshole = I just hope that what goes around does indeed come around.