I will not get into the nitty gritty of ranking philosophers, but it certainly is pretty hard to justify that "Wissenschaft der Logik" and "Das Kapital" are the two most intelligent books ever written
. While Hegel is interesting to read, Marx's ideas have certainly been destructive to humanity (maybe that is how you measure the intelligence of a book? (by its destructiveness)). However, it is more difficult to rank order philosophers than sportsmen or mathematicians. I have to add that Newton's laws of motion are one of the most mundane discoveries/observations he made. He is much more prolific than that. Alas, let us not get too far off topic.
Indeed, let us not go there any more. My examples were of a somewhat humorous nature anyway, just to demonstrate how misplaced those apologists' comparisons of Pogo with Newton and Euler were. Plus, this particular off-topic does not appear to be your forte. I could guess that in your rankings the old fool Bertie Russell sits higher than Marx and Hegel combined. But, for a systemic apologist, nothing else is expected.
Now let us get back to cycling. I do not like Pog and I enjoy seeing him lose. I am a fan of Rog and I would like Rog to wind this year's TdF and beat Pog in the process. I can relate to Rog and it feels pretty natural when he races to be rooting for him. Additionally, there is always a rollercoaster of emotions when Rog is riding and none of these things are there with Pog. Well, maybe for some of his fans but I think he is pretty robotic...
Here is another apologist "move" on display : siding with the opponent. "I am with you, guys, do not like Pogo, but you
have to acknowledge his greatness." Like, I am sorry, but there is no way around it. Surely, this phrase is coming soon.
Having said that, it would be disingenuous to not appreciate Pog's dominance.
Yeah, reluctantly you admit his "dominance" and invite your opponents and by now buddies to do the same. Then we can all go, get some beer and rue the unfortunate -- for all of us now -- Pogo's "greatness and dominance" a bit more.
Ah, but people would say, he is doping and using motors! OK, let us look at the evidence for that.
1. The only topic that raised some dust was the CO rebreathing and it promptly got banned (tbf I thought it was pretty insignificant when it first appeared last year, then I warmed up a little bit to the idea that that might be the smoking gun but I have cooled off again since). There is nothing else that is a smoking gun. I believe they are all doing gray area stuff (whatever that might entail) and some more than others, but that is part of the sport.
Here comes that "smoking gun" the apologists adore and keep bringing up. And the tactics of "siding with the opponent" continues. Of course
you were looking for that "gun" and, in spite your best efforts, could not find it having to
reluctantly admit defeat and
begrudgingly sing kumbaya to the great "generational" Pogo. "See, folks, I do not like it but it's unavoidable in the name of truth itself." Yeah, right.
"Gray area" though is fine and dandy, like gray (in body color) motors.
2. You seem to be a proponent of the motor theory and have brought up some circumstantial "evidence" to support it such as there are some wheels that can store rotational kinetic energy (idk exactly...) or motors which can add 50W here and there therefore are small and undetectable (but then he got a boost of 500W at FW...)
I never brought up those miracle wheels. Such a system is too bulky and complex to be used in bikes. What they use is good old brushless (possibly in a more distributed execution, especially for summer) with lithium batteries. The latter have quite sufficient energy density for "enhanced" bike riding we are witnessing from "generational" Pogo. But yes, those small brushless motors can output in excess of 500W for a shorter period, especially in cool and wet weather.
or that 200 people are conspiring and keeping their mouth's shut because of some Emirate's money.
I do not find any of these plausible, at least I find them much less plausible than observing that humankind can and has produced exceptional people capable of even the most unfathomable achievements. That is my explanation at the moment, but I am happy to reevaluate if more data come in.
Again, the discussion is redirected from the facts under our nose to the perceived (by the apologist in question, of course) technical difficulties of pulling off the fraud. The numbers of people in the full know get invented on the fly and then speculations begin on whether or not one should "feel" or "find" (subjectively, of course) that freshly invented scale "plausible". The opponent -- who is a buddy by now, remember, -- is again gently invited to join such an evaluation. And then that "ground prep" (or, rather, opponents' mind prep) with sweeping generalizations of "achievements" with Newton, Euler and, maybe. if needed, the Gospel authors (indeed, if we look at influential books, how many "standard deviations" those guys John, Luke etc. should be considered above an average writer?) comes handy. By equating Pogo with a pedal pushing analogue of Newton, the apologist has "proved" his point. But the opponent should never forget that the apologist is fundamentally in the same "skeptical and objective" boat and is always 'happy to reevaluate".
So, hopefully, by now the opponent has been distracted enough to start thinking about Newton and Euler exact "metrics" of greatness, how prolific they were etc,, to forget about that "smoking volcano" he has just witnessed with his own eyes. Namely, to be specific, and to use the most recent "experimental" data, that
seated, low cadence comical acceleration up the Muur gapping a bunch of world class hilly specialists -- who were by then in pretty much full standing sprint -- by 20-30 meters in just a few seconds. One more time: low cadence implies high gear and a lot of force on the pedals, the latter demands a standing stance. The absence of the latter
points unequivocally -- due to laws of mechanics that Newton was so kind to discover for us -- to a
source of forward propulsion other than rider's legs. Just how much more smoke is needed? But the smooth apologist prefers to discuss the perceived numbers of folks in the know, Pogo's and other riders' perceived hypothesized feelings and anything else but the direct physical (from the word "physics") evidence.
P.S. An interesting observation about TV translations of that Muur "generaltional" episode. Right before an up to the said "attack", an overhead view is shown. Once the attack begins, the view switches to the one in front of Pogo who is performing that lazy low cadence scorching seated acceleration. So the exact speed of his separation from the group is made not quite obvious. One has to wonder why.
P.P.S. For the benefit of people who might have paid some attention to the content of my philosophy related example. When we speak about Hegel as philosopher, it is very important to distinguish Hegel as the "Science of Logic" author and Hegel as the author of everything else he wrote. The former is much, much above the latter as philosopher. And the one who is "interesting to read" for a typical apologist is almost certainly the latter.
observer.co.uk
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram