Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[TheJediBrah]

That's a good analogy of just how far off base his thinking is.

I pride myself on my analogies

They are independent. The influence depends on the player in question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're so close, but you're not quite there. You still havn't separated them. Prolly because you're still focussing on McGrath vs Hadlee. You're obsessed with this. That's not the only comparison in the world.

The theory explains every [leading] bowler, not just Streak vs Anderson or McGrath vs Hadlee or Hadlee vs Murali or Warne vs Murali or Marshall vs Hadlee. Every single leading bowler.

You're blinded by your hypotheticals. You don't need to be when we know the outcome.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Godspeed.

Bless you.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I pride myself on my analogies



You're blinded by your hypotheticals. You don't need to be when we know the outcome.

You either agree that my theory demonstrates the outcome or it doesn't.

Choose one. I am right. Or am I wrong.

You either get my theory or you don't. It is binary. There is no grey. If you're half right, you're still half wrong.

I know you get competition for wickets, but do you get runs? They're joined at the hip. Team strength for bowlers matter for team strength to batters. There is no grey area.

 

[Starfighter]

You either agree that my theory demonstrates the outcome or it doesn't.

Choose one. I am right. Or am I wrong.

Here's a question. Do you think it is possible for a theory to be logically correct but for the effect to be insignificant in real life?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Here's a question. Do you think it is possible for a theory to be logically correct but for the effect to be insignificant in real life?

Depends, was the theory poised to be correct and insignificant, or correct and significant.

:P

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's a good analogy of just how far off base his thinking is.

You either agree that my theory demonstrates the outcome or it doesn't.

Choose one. I am right. Or am I wrong.

You either get my theory or you don't. It is binary. There is no grey. If you're half right, you're still half wrong.

I know you get competition for wickets, but do you get runs? They're joined at the hip. Team strength for bowlers matter for team strength to batters. There is no grey area.

Which theory are you talking about.

A) that "second innings denial" effect exists and can affect wpm

or

B) "second innings denial" effect is decisive and means that playing in a stronger team = higher wpm (even though evidence says the opposite)

A or B?

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Valuable input. Post of the year.

Says the person posting in large all-caps.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Which theory are you talking about.

A) that "second innings denial" effect exists and can affect wpm

or

B) "second innings denial" effect is decisive and means that playing in a stronger team = higher wpm (even though evidence says the opposite)

A or B?

Nice try. But I only have one theory. It has two limiting factors effecting every single bowler ever in differing proportions.

Stop the amateur hour already.

 

[Starfighter]

Depends, was the theory poised to be correct and insignificant, or correct and significant.

'Correct' means that the causal chain is structurally sound. There is a clear action that leads to an effect. There is no 'poised'.

Do you think that it is possible for a theory to be logically correct but for the effect to be significant in real life?

 

[Starfighter]

Nice try. But I only have one theory. It has two limiting factors.

Stop the amateur hour already.

Have you done any actual science at any point in your life? Chemistry, physics, biology etc? Done any statistics?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

'Correct' means that the causal chain is structurally sound. There is a clear action that leads to an effect. There is no 'poised'.

Do you think that it is possible for a theory to be logically correct but for the effect to be significant in real life?

Well given both examples I gave involved correct, there is absolutely no need whatsoever to distinguish between definitions of correct.

So - I repeat, again, was the theory poised to be correct and insignificant, or correct and significant (where correct means the same thing in both options)?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nice try. But I only have one theory. It has two limiting factors effecting every single bowler ever in differing proportions.

Stop the amateur hour already.

How can you ask me if I agree with your theory if you can't even tell me what your theory is?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

How can you ask me if I agree with your theory if you can't even tell me what your theory is?

Two limits,
runs and compettion for wickets.

Shall I paste earlier posts or is this sufficient to refresh your memory?

I don't mind either way.

I'LL keep posting the first posts ad nasueam if I have to.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Have you done any actual science at any point in your life? Chemistry, physics, biology etc? Done any statistics?

Do you really think stats is an absolute science? Discuss.

http://rajlaboratory.blogspot.com/2014/03/statistics-is-not-science.html

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/why_psychology_and_statistics_are_not_science.html

https://simplystatistics.org/2012/04/11/statistics-is-not-math/

https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=2580

But yes, I am savvy with stats.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Sure. Read back. It is in there.

You didn't actually answer Red Hill's question.

He said that he'd read 'pages and pages of argument', so if it was there, he couldn't find it.

What was so difficult about explaining 'your theory in succinct paragraph' that you couldn't simply just do that?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Two limits,
runs and compettion for wickets.

Shall I paste earlier posts or is this sufficient to refresh your memory?

I don't mind either way.

I'LL keep posting the first posts ad nasueam if I have to.

That's not a theory. That is not even a sentence.

Pick A or B, it's changed throughout the thread:

Which theory are you talking about.

A) that "second innings denial" effect exists and can affect wpm

or

B) "second innings denial" effect is decisive and means that playing in a stronger team = higher wpm (even though evidence says the opposite)

A or B?

If you pick A or B I can tell you if I agree or not. Not that complicated.

 

[Starfighter]

Well given both examples I gave involved correct, there is absolutely no need whatsoever to distinguish between definitions of correct.

So - I repeat, again, was the theory poised to be correct and insignificant, or correct and significant (where correct means the same thing in both options)?

Theories can't be poised to be one or the other, unless you mean posited. You can only judge whether they are significant by looking at the real word data. Until you look at the data, you don't know if it is significant, even if you know qualitatively that the causal chain is sound.

Do you think it is possible for a theory to be correct but for the effect to be insignificant in real life?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You didn't actually answer Red Hill's question.

He said that he'd read 'pages and pages of argument', so if it was there, he couldn't find it.

What was so difficult about explaining 'your theory in succinct paragraph' that you couldn't simply just do that?

Nothing. But like him not being bothered to read back, I wasn't bothered to type my paragraph out again. Fair's fair.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Theories can't be poised to be one or the other, unless you mean posited. You can only judge whether they are significant by looking at the real word data. Until you look at the data, you don't know if it is significant, even if you know qualitatively that the causal chain is sound.

Do you think it is possible for a theory to be correct but for the effect to be insignificant in real life?

Why do you think I can keep proving my theory with more data? (Your words)

 

[Starfighter]

Which theory are you talking about.

A) that "second innings denial" effect exists and can affect wpm

or

B) "second innings denial" effect is decisive and means that playing in a stronger team = higher wpm (even though evidence says the opposite)

A or B?

And it should be stated that this thread was started specifically about B