• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tour de France Tour de France 2022: Stage 19 (Castelnau-Magnoac – Cahors, 188.3k)

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
No doubt there are better climbers than Geschke. But we’ve all watched racing long enough to know how these things work. Do we really think Peter Sagan was the best sprinter all those years he won he green jersey? He always consistently finished near the top and that’s one way to win it.


Armstrong has a point, of course. But he is also seems most himself when he’s trashing something or someone. We all know the type.
To give my 2 cents about this too, I might be wrong but what that article is describing simply isn't the simpson paradox right? If my memory serves me right the simpson paradox is a very well defined one and just because something sounds vaguely like the outcome of that paradox that doesn't make it the same paradox (though I really don't think paradox is even the correct word for the sagan case).
 
To give my 2 cents about this too, I might be wrong but what that article is describing simply isn't the simpson paradox right? If my memory serves me right the simpson paradox is a very well defined one and just because something sounds vaguely like the outcome of that paradox that doesn't make it the same paradox (though I really don't think paradox is even the correct word for the sagan case).

That was my reaction. Nothing about Sagan is paradoxical at all...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobertCrawley
To give my 2 cents about this too, I might be wrong but what that article is describing simply isn't the simpson paradox right? If my memory serves me right the simpson paradox is a very well defined one and just because something sounds vaguely like the outcome of that paradox that doesn't make it the same paradox (though I really don't think paradox is even the correct word for the sagan case).
As far as I remember, Simpson's paradox, which also goes by several other names, is a phenomenon in probability and statistics in which a trend appears in several groups of data but disappears or reverses when the groups are combined. This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science statistics,[1][2][3] and is particularly problematic when frequency data are unduly given causal interpretations.[4] The paradox can be resolved when confounding variables and causal relations are appropriately addressed in the statistical modeling.[4][5] Simpson's paradox has been used to illustrate the kind of misleading results that the misuse of statistics can generate.[6][7]

This is off the top of my head, so take it with a grain of salt.
 

TRENDING THREADS