3 ms·

The same argument was used to defend closed access journals: the public can't be trusted to understand raw scientific research.

by Evbn 14y ago

wangarific 14y ago
Anytime you open up anything like this, you force the "experts" to prove they're actually experts... and that's often difficult.
- glanch 14y ago
  Very true. I am a die-hard NFL fan, and I can honestly say that there is very little useful 'expert analysis' presented to the public, at least in terms of predicting future results (which is the holy grail of analysis, at least from my perspective, as a fan and something interested in gambling). Before every season, all the 'experts' come to a general consensus on which teams should be good, and which should not. They are always nearly identical to the results of the previous season. Yet statistics from the past decade have shown us that there is a nearly 50% annual turnover among the teams who qualify for the playoffs (the top 12 out of 32 teams). Only recently have some experts begun to at least attempt to follow this trend, but for the most part, pre-season predictions are laughably conservative. They tend to just remember who was good last year, and assume they'll be good this year, even though it's been proven year after year that just doesn't happen. I like to follow sports because it's one of the arenas in which you can clearly measure so many statistics and the accuracy of predictions. Of course the nature of random events (injuries mostly) is the cause for much of this chaos, but I felt like the NFL was a great example of experts being overwhelmingly.. well.. underwhelming, and observably so.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 14y ago
  It's not always easy to judge. If a local weather man says 30% chance of rain in DC, does that account mean rain on in some part of DC, 30% of DC will get rain, the average chance of rain for the area is 30% with some parts of it having above 30% and others lower, or some combination of all 3.
001sky 14y ago
This is a good point. What's ironic is that American Football playbooks, formations, and strategies are almost ludicrously complex. And the number of people that think athletes are "stupid" is amusingly large. A large number of the latter are ignorant of the former, including a large chunk of "intellectuals" contributing to closed access journals. people are intelligent in various ways, 3D spatial intelligence for example does not translate into wirting per-se. Nor does it follow that because you are book-smart you will have a clue about analyzing game film.

The same argument was used to defend closed access journals: the public can't be trusted to understand raw scientific research.

by Evbn 14y ago

The same argument was used to defend closed access journals: the public can't be trusted to understand raw scientific research.

wangarific 14y ago

Anytime you open up anything like this, you force the "experts" to prove they're actually experts... and that's often difficult.

glanch 14y ago
Very true. I am a die-hard NFL fan, and I can honestly say that there is very little useful 'expert analysis' presented to the public, at least in terms of predicting future results (which is the holy grail of analysis, at least from my perspective, as a fan and something interested in gambling). Before every season, all the 'experts' come to a general consensus on which teams should be good, and which should not. They are always nearly identical to the results of the previous season. Yet statistics from the past decade have shown us that there is a nearly 50% annual turnover among the teams who qualify for the playoffs (the top 12 out of 32 teams). Only recently have some experts begun to at least attempt to follow this trend, but for the most part, pre-season predictions are laughably conservative. They tend to just remember who was good last year, and assume they'll be good this year, even though it's been proven year after year that just doesn't happen. I like to follow sports because it's one of the arenas in which you can clearly measure so many statistics and the accuracy of predictions. Of course the nature of random events (injuries mostly) is the cause for much of this chaos, but I felt like the NFL was a great example of experts being overwhelmingly.. well.. underwhelming, and observably so.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Retric 14y ago
It's not always easy to judge. If a local weather man says 30% chance of rain in DC, does that account mean rain on in some part of DC, 30% of DC will get rain, the average chance of rain for the area is 30% with some parts of it having above 30% and others lower, or some combination of all 3.

001sky 14y ago

This is a good point. What's ironic is that American Football playbooks, formations, and strategies are almost ludicrously complex. And the number of people that think athletes are "stupid" is amusingly large. A large number of the latter are ignorant of the former, including a large chunk of "intellectuals" contributing to closed access journals. people are intelligent in various ways, 3D spatial intelligence for example does not translate into wirting per-se. Nor does it follow that because you are book-smart you will have a clue about analyzing game film.