- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
This post struck a chord and I wanted to replay it and perhaps flesh it out a bit. It applies across all threads in the clinic, so I felt it deserved its own thread.
The difference: definitions
ev·i·dence; noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
proof; noun
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Forgive the wording here, I am no lawyer, but by way of "explanation", I would say:
* You start with a belief or proposition.
* You have evidence that supports that proposition or belief "indicating the belief is valid" - in fact it's usually the thing that creates the belief in the first place.
* Your evidence may also support a contrary proposition or belief, or there may be other evidence to the contrary.
* When you have overwhelming evidence that supports one proposition or belief or evidence strong enough as to be conclusive, you have proof.
Evidence: supports the validity of a belief.
Proof: establishes a belief as factual, or true, via conclusive, overwhelming, irrefutable evidence.
How does this apply to the clinic?
We have no proof [riders from Team XYZ who have no positive tests (yet)] are / have been doping. We have a lot of (inconclusive) evidence of same, however.
The clinic is not a court of law, however. This is something that has been posted about 10,000 times in discussions regarding "evidence" vs "proof" when it comes to doping and rider performances.
So when people post things like, "Bradley Wiggins doped", they are personally convinced that the evidence is sufficient to prove their belief, even if that evidence does not stand up to scrutiny as iron clad, conclusive proof, and cannot be used by the UCI (for example) to accuse a rider.
NB: that scrutiny is applied by both Sky believers and non-believers alike. I won't get negative with posters who tend to take extreme positions, but can confidently say people like red_flanders and TheHitch do not believe in Sky, but will definitely call bvllsh!t on people making spurious cases against Sky.
A non-clinic specific example:
I want you to imagine leaving a block of chocolate on the counter at home and saying to your children, "Do not eat the chocolate", as you head out to do some groceries.
Upon arriving home, the chocolate is gone, and your 5 year old is standing in the kitchen, looking as guilty as hell, chocolatey lips quivering in anticipation of the telling off coming.
In this scenario, you have the following evidence:
1. the chocolate is gone
2. one child has chocolate on their lips and looks like they are about to cry / lips quivering
You immediately form a belief: this child ate the chocolate left on the bench.
You do not, however, have proof that this child ate this particular chocolate bar.
The evidence also supports the following scenario:
A race of space aliens, whose bodies are comprised of chocolate, invaded your home and rescued their child (the block of chocolate). Your 5 year old child, upon seeing this event, launched a savage attack, biting the space aliens in the process.
1. the chocolate is gone (the aliens were successful)
2. one child has chocolate on their lips and looks like they are about to cry / lips quivering (they bit the aliens, and have been emotionally traumatised by the home invasion and subsequent fight)
Upon asking your 5 year old what happened (seeking additional evidence), why they look upset, what happened to the chocolate, you get a story. You then call your 7 year old in, and ask them the same questions. She's a bit older and wiser, and has no chocolate on her face, and a quick breath test reveals unusually clean teeth that have been freshly brushed with copious quantities of tooth paste.
5 year old says 7 year old offered him some chocolate in his room, and before he'd thought about it, had eaten said gift. When he went out to the kitchen later, 7 year old was scoffing the chocolate. 5 year old realises he'd been duped, and is most upset that he only got to eat 2 pieces, while she scoffed the rest. And can he have some more please, because it's unfair.
You still only have evidence, not proof. A video camera in the kitchen, capturing the consumption would provide proof.
7 year old naturally denies the story, but her story seems a bit wonky and she blushes the whole time in the telling.
I'll leave the final verdict up to you, this is simply to provide an illustration of evidence vs proof, and why some people in the Clinic are confident when proclaiming rider XYZ doped / dopes.
red_flanders said:
The difference: definitions
ev·i·dence; noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
proof; noun
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Forgive the wording here, I am no lawyer, but by way of "explanation", I would say:
* You start with a belief or proposition.
* You have evidence that supports that proposition or belief "indicating the belief is valid" - in fact it's usually the thing that creates the belief in the first place.
* Your evidence may also support a contrary proposition or belief, or there may be other evidence to the contrary.
* When you have overwhelming evidence that supports one proposition or belief or evidence strong enough as to be conclusive, you have proof.
Evidence: supports the validity of a belief.
Proof: establishes a belief as factual, or true, via conclusive, overwhelming, irrefutable evidence.
How does this apply to the clinic?
We have no proof [riders from Team XYZ who have no positive tests (yet)] are / have been doping. We have a lot of (inconclusive) evidence of same, however.
The clinic is not a court of law, however. This is something that has been posted about 10,000 times in discussions regarding "evidence" vs "proof" when it comes to doping and rider performances.
So when people post things like, "Bradley Wiggins doped", they are personally convinced that the evidence is sufficient to prove their belief, even if that evidence does not stand up to scrutiny as iron clad, conclusive proof, and cannot be used by the UCI (for example) to accuse a rider.
NB: that scrutiny is applied by both Sky believers and non-believers alike. I won't get negative with posters who tend to take extreme positions, but can confidently say people like red_flanders and TheHitch do not believe in Sky, but will definitely call bvllsh!t on people making spurious cases against Sky.
A non-clinic specific example:
I want you to imagine leaving a block of chocolate on the counter at home and saying to your children, "Do not eat the chocolate", as you head out to do some groceries.
Upon arriving home, the chocolate is gone, and your 5 year old is standing in the kitchen, looking as guilty as hell, chocolatey lips quivering in anticipation of the telling off coming.
In this scenario, you have the following evidence:
1. the chocolate is gone
2. one child has chocolate on their lips and looks like they are about to cry / lips quivering
You immediately form a belief: this child ate the chocolate left on the bench.
You do not, however, have proof that this child ate this particular chocolate bar.
The evidence also supports the following scenario:
A race of space aliens, whose bodies are comprised of chocolate, invaded your home and rescued their child (the block of chocolate). Your 5 year old child, upon seeing this event, launched a savage attack, biting the space aliens in the process.
1. the chocolate is gone (the aliens were successful)
2. one child has chocolate on their lips and looks like they are about to cry / lips quivering (they bit the aliens, and have been emotionally traumatised by the home invasion and subsequent fight)
Upon asking your 5 year old what happened (seeking additional evidence), why they look upset, what happened to the chocolate, you get a story. You then call your 7 year old in, and ask them the same questions. She's a bit older and wiser, and has no chocolate on her face, and a quick breath test reveals unusually clean teeth that have been freshly brushed with copious quantities of tooth paste.
5 year old says 7 year old offered him some chocolate in his room, and before he'd thought about it, had eaten said gift. When he went out to the kitchen later, 7 year old was scoffing the chocolate. 5 year old realises he'd been duped, and is most upset that he only got to eat 2 pieces, while she scoffed the rest. And can he have some more please, because it's unfair.
You still only have evidence, not proof. A video camera in the kitchen, capturing the consumption would provide proof.
7 year old naturally denies the story, but her story seems a bit wonky and she blushes the whole time in the telling.
I'll leave the final verdict up to you, this is simply to provide an illustration of evidence vs proof, and why some people in the Clinic are confident when proclaiming rider XYZ doped / dopes.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram