Scientific Dialog: Coggan Style

[DirtyWorks]

Wash U is one of the great academic institutions is th US, employing a tool. I would love to know if the department chair is even aware.

Modern academia loves producers like Coggan. At least in the U.S., academia is measured by grant writing and patent grants. Pure research is mostly dead except for aged basic researchers who contributed something significant decades ago.

As noted, Andy apparently got his PhD under Ed Coyle. For the newer reader, Ed abandoned Science years ago by authoring a terrible science-like paper that was used to legitimate Armstrong's performances. Critics of the paper were personally attacked as the science equivalent of drunk *****s, bitter, know-nothings, etc. It was an awesome win for the Armstrong sports fraud machine. Ed revisited the reviled paper and defended the analysis sometime in 2013(?) prior to the Doprah interview. It's a textbook case of bad science, he and his university apparently unconcerned and unapologetic.

That's a pretty good indicator of the steep decline in academic rigour in the U.S.

Also, Andy is still on a DMCA takedown spree: http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/72340148173/tumblr-dmca-notice-dear-veloclinic-weve

Stay classy Acoggan!

 

[blutto]

He got it under Coyle. Actually it isn't fake, but if the right people were on top of their job it would be revoked.

...so the correct answer is that you pulled it out of your ****....I was hoping for better, really I was...

...fyi, "thesis advisors"( or whatever else that position is called in other jurisdictions ) dorks are the rule, and most definitely not the exception....most of my colleagues thru grad school had terrible thesis advisors but it never prevented them from producing some really good work after the fact....for the record, the thesis advisor I had for my MA was a self-righteous born-again useless dork, whereas my Ph.D. program was overseen by an absolute angel ( and my work since then hasn't really reflected either one or the other... )....and btw the program result is not "approved" or a degree granted by the advisor, but rather by a panel of peers that, in most educational institutions, are by definition "removed" from the advisor ( thus providing a theoretical arm's length oversight )...

Cheers

 

[Almeisan]

Try to explain to 'acoggan' you have a PhD as well. Good luck.

 

[kielbasa]

Why is this thread in The Clinic?

 

[blutto]

Try to explain to 'acoggan' you have a PhD as well. Good luck.

...congratulations!, another absolutely brilliant post....nicely marks your milestone 100th posting....looking forward to more scintillating posts as you pad your cred here at CN ...

Cheers

 

[Almeisan]

A cycling internet forum is where you go for a credibility ego boost?

 

[blutto]

That's a pretty good indicator of the steep decline in academic rigour in the U.S.

....steep decline eh?....well here is an update on the last millennia or so of academia.....the modern cycle of institutions of higher learning have since their inception been primarily repositories of existing knowledge that these self same institutions then pass onto their students.....as such their faculties are generally populated by what we used to call "bricklayers" whose job, when they aren't instructing students was to slowly and carefully build an edifice on the foundations defined by earlier well established intellectual breakthroughs....as such this is for the most part a noble endeavour that helped move the human project forward but at its heart this is a conservative movement and it can and has many times in history become a corrupt and fossilized impediment to progress....

....the problem is that those bricklayers are also for the most part hacks whose blinkered world view can be a roadblock to major change....such changes are usually foundation breaking and for mere bricklayers these are a most scary development...as a result "good solid established" scholarship has always resisted dramatic change ( the real research I think you talk about )...

...you may want to take a peek at Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution to see how the battle between the bricklayers and the visionaries has always been fought...

...so, bottom line, academia has always "been in decline"....and it has always been populated by a lot of hacks....but like democracy with which it is tied it is the best system for transferral of knowledge that has existed...not perfect perhaps but by fits and starts it works...and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west....

Cheers

 

[ChewbaccaD]

PhD stands for "piled higher and deeper"

 

[blutto]

PhD stands for "piled higher and deeper"

....without question!...

Cheers

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why is this thread in The Clinic?

Theory: veloclinic ("Michael") is developing a model for VO2max power, etc, in an effort to provide insight into potential doping in the pro peloton.

His model is along the same lines as the WKO(3, 4, etc) model and after looking at that model, he believes it is flawed, and put a video (Exhibit A) together explaining why.

That video (Exhibit A) is the video Coggan had removed from youtube due to alleged copyright violations.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Theory: veloclinic ("Michael") is developing a model for VO2max power, etc, in an effort to provide insight into potential doping in the pro peloton.

His model is along the same lines as the WKO(3, 4, etc) model and after looking at that model, he believes it is flawed, and put a video (Exhibit A) together explaining why.

That video (Exhibit A) is the video Coggan had removed from youtube due to alleged copyright violations.

Andy answered a question during the webinars regarding potential use of his power duration modelling for anti-doping efforts.

The model developed by Andy is not available for general use, it won't be until WKO4 is released some time this year. It is not in WKO3. I have no idea if/when the underlying model will ever be made public, that's a matter for those that develop the model.

Another (far more plausible) theory:

Someone posts up a reproduction of a video which stated up front it was not for reproduction (at least not without permission), and they did so without asking permission. So they got asked to remove it. Whoopee do.


The "anti-antidoping" insinuation of such a basic and reasonable action is simply ridiculous, and this being in the clinic is ludicrous.

All one need to have done was:
a. ask permission to reproduce it, which would be either be granted or denied, and/or
b. simply point people to the publisher's original (and free) video link which can be viewed by anyone there. This is the easiest thing to do and does not require permission, and could be done be anyone today.


Anyone who wishes to criticise Andy's work is free to do so, and they can freely post a link to the video they are criticising. Why is that such a problem? It does not shut down anyone's capacity to criticise / comment / provide feedback.

This is such a storm in a thimble.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What a bunch of pseudonymous cowards.

Poor baby.

 

[MarkvW]

Andy answered a question during the webinars regarding potential use of his power duration modelling for anti-doping efforts.

The model developed by Andy is not available for general use, it won't be until WKO4 is released some time this year. It is not in WKO3. I have no idea if/when the underlying model will ever be made public, that's a matter for those that develop the model.

Another (far more plausible) theory:

Someone posts up a reproduction of a video which stated up front it was not for reproduction (at least not without permission), and they did so without asking permission. So they got asked to remove it. Whoopee do.


The "anti-antidoping" insinuation of such a basic and reasonable action is simply ridiculous, and this being in the clinic is ludicrous.

All one need to have done was:
a. ask permission to reproduce it, which would be either be granted or denied, and/or
b. simply point people to the publisher's original (and free) video link which can be viewed by anyone there. This is the easiest thing to do and does not require permission, and could be done be anyone today.


Anyone who wishes to criticise Andy's work is free to do so, and they can freely post a link to the video they are criticising. Why is that such a problem? It does not shut down anyone's capacity to criticise / comment / provide feedback.

This is such a storm in a thimble. What a bunch of pseudonymous cowards.

Your resort to name-calling highlights the impotence of your argument.

 

[Ripper]

Andy answered a question during the webinars regarding potential use of his power duration modelling for anti-doping efforts.

The model developed by Andy is not available for general use, it won't be until WKO4 is released some time this year. It is not in WKO3. I have no idea if/when the underlying model will ever be made public, that's a matter for those that develop the model.

Another (far more plausible) theory:

Someone posts up a reproduction of a video which stated up front it was not for reproduction (at least not without permission), and they did so without asking permission. So they got asked to remove it. Whoopee do.


The "anti-antidoping" insinuation of such a basic and reasonable action is simply ridiculous, and this being in the clinic is ludicrous.

All one need to have done was:
a. ask permission to reproduce it, which would be either be granted or denied, and/or
b. simply point people to the publisher's original (and free) video link which can be viewed by anyone there. This is the easiest thing to do and does not require permission, and could be done be anyone today.


Anyone who wishes to criticise Andy's work is free to do so, and they can freely post a link to the video they are criticising. Why is that such a problem? It does not shut down anyone's capacity to criticise / comment / provide feedback.

This is such a storm in a thimble. What a bunch of pseudonymous cowards.

This thread does seem like much ado about nothing. But AC also feeds it ...

 

[nomapnocompass]

Anyone who wishes to criticise Andy's work is free to do so, and they can freely post a link to the video they are criticising. Why is that such a problem? It does not shut down anyone's capacity to criticise / comment / provide feedback.

Sorry but that is not true, case in point...

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/72...eloclinic-weve

 

[RownhamHill]

Sorry but that is not true, case in point...

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/72...eloclinic-weve

So that link goes to a missing URL. So having no idea what was on the page before, it's kind of hard to grasp what the case in point is here. Any chance you could clarify what you're getting at?

 

[ebandit]

why?

Why is this thread in The Clinic?

why does this thread exist?...............................

............group dissing of an individual is popular

Mark L

 

[Cloxxki]

I can't read all this bickering.

If scientific theory cannot be reviewed, let's be happy that Einstein and gang didn't copyright their stuff. And if they DID, how was discussion possible at all?
Good luck discussing Einstein's work without ever quoting e=mc².

We'd be forced to marry their scientific theories, or ignore them completely. No way to start any scientific discussion.
Now don't you DARE utter that technical term I just pinned...

acoggan's superiority complex has bothered me before, but he's breaking into advanced psychological syndrome behavior now. I can't state the terms, Freud et all's lawyers would be on my back immediately.

 

[blutto]

....au contraire, mon ami(s)...AS's argument ( btw, a counter-argument which has since been cleaned up by the janitorial staff, dismissed the initial aforementioned argument as impotent, hence the following childish yet charming retort...which btw was also scrubbed but is now being sneakily "re-inserted"...don't tell nobody... ) actually stands up quite nicely...its as high as the sky, and as strong and stiff as a sequoia...and it pounds your position into dust like a super-charged jack-hammer ....though of course, your mileage may vary ..


...but here is a thought ( and at my age I don't get these very often so lets all sit back and enjoy, shall we... ), maybe if youse guys just lob a few more of those fake Ph.D.// acoggan is a prime example of the end of civilization as we know it posts ( you know, your most sophisticated and deadliest mental missiles...), the enemy will finally flee the field fearing for their sanity and the most august, awesomely awesome Clinic Crew can finally celebrate a great moral, intellectual, and, dare I say, legalistical-like victory ( like saving the world, once again, from, like, yet another greatest threat to civilization ever, and finally, yes finally, achieving world peace, getting Dr. Coogan to renounce his fake Ph.D. and leave academia in a cloud of shame, having the corrupt and incompetent University of Texas and Washington University close their doors, and so on and so forth )....and youse guys can go back to whatever important stuff youse were doing before this threat to life on earth was brought to light...

Cheers

 

[Eshnar]

Stop the bickering now, or the thread closes.

 

[thehog]

I can't read all this bickering.

If scientific theory cannot be reviewed, let's be happy that Einstein and gang didn't copyright their stuff. And if they DID, how was discussion possible at all?
Good luck discussing Einstein's work without ever quoting e=mc².

We'd be forced to marry their scientific theories, or ignore them completely. No way to start any scientific discussion.
Now don't you DARE utter that technical term I just pinned...

acoggan's superiority complex has bothered me before, but he's breaking into advanced psychological syndrome behavior now. I can't state the terms, Freud et all's lawyers would be on my back immediately.

Einstein academically was a failure. He was never accepted into university due to failing the entrance exams. He was also a failure at school. And also a dyslexic. Brilliant in so many ways with the exception of passing tests.

The issue really comes down to mix of commercial interest with academia.

What is being protected is the commercial and business related interest rather than the preservation of unique research or the non-permitted use of copyrighted material.

No one wants to let go or have the keys to machine unlocked.

His work is not revered by Pro cyclists. Most if not all have not even heard of him. But aspiring amateurs buy his products as a form of numbers doping.

I'd steer well clear of it.

 

[veganrob]

I can't read all this bickering.

If scientific theory cannot be reviewed, let's be happy that Einstein and gang didn't copyright their stuff. And if they DID, how was discussion possible at all?
Good luck discussing Einstein's work without ever quoting e=mc².

We'd be forced to marry their scientific theories, or ignore them completely. No way to start any scientific discussion.
Now don't you DARE utter that technical term I just pinned...

acoggan's superiority complex has bothered me before, but he's breaking into advanced psychological syndrome behavior now. I can't state the terms, Freud et all's lawyers would be on my back immediately.

Thanks for bringing this point of view to the conversation. You are then probably familiar with Thomas Jefferson views on patents. I think they can be applied here as well.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well this was a lot of BS. I just read through this thread and would do almost anything to recover that lost 15 minutes of my life. My take away from all this is that Coggan "has no trouble with people criticizing his work" as long as they can do it without quoting anything.

So what he is saying is, he does have big trouble with anyone criticizing his work, but I think we all knew that.
Are we done?

 

[JayKosta]

...
Anyone who wishes to criticise Andy's work is free to do so, and they can freely post a link to the video they are criticising. Why is that such a problem? It does not shut down anyone's capacity to criticise / comment / provide feedback.
...

----------------------------------------------
I fully agree with Alex.

The 'copyright issue' is that Coggan's work was improperly used by being copied onto another web location (in gross excess of 'fair use' allowance) without Coggan's approval as the legal owner.
This is the same principle as copying a book, music, art, etc.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[nomapnocompass]

His work was not improperly used...

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations;

Veloclinic's post was not in violation of the above. Coggan just does not believe his work worthy of criticism and so must defend it by the only means he has left.