RownhamHill said:
To be fair, it appeared like you made a very similar argument with regards to Wiggins dirtiness just the other day - as I understood it you compared the suggestion that Wiggins was clean as to being as believable as Santa dropping a watch in your garden, and therefore because you don't/can't believe the 'Wiggins is Clean' story as it's been presented, you don't need to explain the exact mechanism of his dirtiness. . . I'm not having a pop here - it's your feelings you're describing, so fair enough - just pointing out that's not so far removed from your 6th sense telling you he's dirty. . .
No.
This is a mistake so many people in the clinic make. An analogy is not the same as a comparison.
We were not discussing whether Wiggins is dirty, we were discussing whether it is possible to dismiss a theory without knowing what the right one is.
You asked how I could believe an answer is wrong without knowing what the correct answer is. I gave you a made up example of an unrealistic theory being dismissed by a logical person despite the person not having anternative theory.
It was an illustration for that particular discussion. Deliberately over the top to make the point.
The point being that it is not unreasonable for someone to be certain something is incorrect, even if they don't know what the correct answer.
To give a simpler less long winded example. Exactly how many grains of sand are there in the Sahara? You don't know? What if I say that the answer is 17.
Do you think my answer might be correct, or do you think you have sufficient evidence to dismiss my answer as being incorrect, even without knowing the answer yourself?
And that is not an argument that Wiggins is doping. That is an argument defending my ability to dismiss a theory - sky are clean, without knowing exactly what the correct answer is.
And btw I actually do have theories (unlike in my examples) and I have offered them. I think the most likely option is that Wiggins started doping after he found out Team Sky was going to set up with him potentially as Britains hero for the 2012 olympics, and started doping at the olympics. But I won't hold my hand into the fire for that theory because its perfectly possible that he started doping after the 2009 Giro when he saw he could climb but needed to do a bit more, or that he was introduced to doping by a friend in the off season, or that he doped before, but never went full in.
What I was arguing all along was more a philosophical point that one doesn't need to know the right answer to tell a wrong answer.
because you don't/can't believe the 'Wiggins is Clean' story as it's been presented, you don't need to explain the exact mechanism of his dirtiness. .. .
I don't need to explain the exact mechanisms. Why would I. Does someone who believes Indurain doped need to explain the exact mechanisms? what year he started, why he started that year, what drugs he used etc?
One doesn't need to know every little detail to have a conviction in the general theory.