> This agrees perfectly with the statisticians definition, albeit applied to one particular example. Specifically, the slanted ball game field would provide a b

> This agrees perfectly with the statisticians definition, albeit applied to one particular example. Specifically, the slanted ball game field would provide a biased measurement (in the statistical sense) of player ability. Score 1 for the mathematicians. That's silly. It's not a competition between mathematicians and all other people for the 'correct', Platonic definition of a word -- a word is defined by how people use and interpret it. Logical, mathematical deduction from first principles is not the only way to look at the world. Unless I'm mistaken, I think your objection can be summarized as 'we shouldn't talk about things that we don't have airtight definitions for (like racial bias or racial prejudice), because it might confuse people'. I happen to strongly disagree, since grappling with fuzzy definitions is precisely how we get to having better definitions. Otherwise, we should give up on ever talking about anything except math, where we have clear axioms to work with. Even in math, people were profitably doing calculus before we had clear definitions for infinitesimals, integrals, derivatives, or proofs that our procedures produced correct results. The logical machinery and deductive logic often comes after people spent time grappling with fuzzy, intuitive things with unclear definitions.