incognito_man Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 32 minutes ago, vegas492 said: No fans eye test is trash I'm pulling this bit, because this is the core of my argument. And I disagree with this statement with every fiber of my being. Most people's opinions on most things are trash. Especially emotional things. Like: global warming, and their favorite sports teams. I've alluded to this before, so I'll leave a bit of Isaac Asimov here to say it better than me: There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 59 minutes ago, incognito_man said: I'm pulling this bit, because this is the core of my argument. And I disagree with this statement with every fiber of my being. Most people's opinions on most things are trash. Especially emotional things. Like: global warming, and their favorite sports teams. I've alluded to this before, so I'll leave a bit of Isaac Asimov here to say it better than me: There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Since when is being a fan, short for FANATIC supposed to be intellectual? I mean, come on, how many posts does Norm have? He freely admits to not knowing all that much, but he does see things and understands things and has merit when he speaks...as a fan of the Green Bay Packers. (Norm, just picking you out because you never claim to be "in the know". And...I picked you because I know you can take it.) And absolutely none of that has anything to do with the DVOA metric. A metric that you, and I, as (somewhat) educated people have to take as gospel (or fact) because the creators of said metric will not disclose their formula for the creation of the metric. And still, I'll give you a "like" for your response as I appreciate the back and forth with you. Always have. It is okay to disagree. And...you deserve one for quoting someone born in Russia speaking about the American culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: I'm pulling this bit, because this is the core of my argument. And I disagree with this statement with every fiber of my being. Most people's opinions on most things are trash. Especially emotional things. Like: global warming, and their favorite sports teams. I've alluded to this before, so I'll leave a bit of Isaac Asimov here to say it better than me: There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Always hated this quote. Seemingly always see it used as a blind defense of somebody with a doctorate protesting (sometimes valid) criticism of a statement. Always found the climate and concussion examples as very poor, as though the initial science into both of those wasn't rough in the extreme and didn't arguably do more harm than good in public belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: I'm pulling this bit, because this is the core of my argument. And I disagree with this statement with every fiber of my being. Most people's opinions on most things are trash. Especially emotional things. Like: global warming, and their favorite sports teams. I've alluded to this before, so I'll leave a bit of Isaac Asimov here to say it better than me: There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Whoa......thats a fairly broad spectrum you've got there Ingog. Global warming and sports teams? I agree with this thought: "The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” I may have a "rooting interest" in my tastes in sports - and I try to curb outright emotionalism - but I dont apply the same mentality to anything close to global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Regarding Asimov's quote, and the issue of ignorance and anti-intellectualism: I believe in science, including the important discourse that takes place in the scientific community about the scientific method. Question everything, and form your opinion using the best science available with credible data. I still sometimes default to the eye-test occasionally but remind myself constantly that my "gut" is an unproven, untested hypothesis. If I'm that intrigued by the topic, I'll launch my own investigation of said topic to seek the answers, and even then I'm reminded/cautioned about where the data came from, and ask "is it credible"? Much of what's said in this forum is opinion, other than the occasional stats that come from relatively reliable sources. I try not to bust on folks for expressing their "opinions" because I'm doing the same thing here - sometimes with great thought, and sometimes with a lazy take. Bottom line - my own personal truth is somewhere between eye-test and thoroughly researched data, but I rarely hold a strong-line on either, because everything I type is debatable. Thus, for me, this site is entertainment and an opportunity to hear what other folks think about the state of things, and to occasionally get the news of an important and breaking development involving our team, other teams, and the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 So....Are Sasquatch real? Given that awesome post....I have to ask! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, Sasquatch said: Regarding Asimov's quote, and the issue of ignorance and anti-intellectualism: I believe in science, including the important discourse that takes place in the scientific community about the scientific method. Question everything, and form your opinion using the best science available with credible data. I still sometimes default to the eye-test occasionally but remind myself constantly that my "gut" is an unproven, untested hypothesis. If I'm that intrigued by the topic, I'll launch my own investigation of said topic to seek the answers, and even then I'm reminded/cautioned about where the data came from, and ask "is it credible"? Much of what's said in this forum is opinion, other than the occasional stats that come from relatively reliable sources. I try not to bust on folks for expressing their "opinions" because I'm doing the same thing here - sometimes with great thought, and sometimes with a lazy take. Bottom line - my own personal truth is somewhere between eye-test and thoroughly researched data, but I rarely hold a strong-line on either, because everything I type is debatable. Thus, for me, this site is entertainment and an opportunity to hear what other folks think about the state of things, and to occasionally get the news of an important and breaking development involving our team, other teams, and the NFL. I agree completely. I also will bust in people if they ignore reality to substitute their eye test (without VERY convincing reasoning). Certainly the eye test and common sense deserve inclusion when obviously applicable. Like making judgements on GBs offense when Rodgers isn't playing or something. But pretty much otherwise in comparison debates, unbiased metrics are vastly superior than the eye test. I would have said I thought our defense looked better too. Probably because I wanted it too, and there are a couple guys who look like studs. But upon closer inspection...the overall product isn't better yet. I wouldn't argue with someone who thinks the defense looks like it is heading in the right direction, however. I agree we have flashed on that side a few times and put together some good stretches and have a few nice pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 51 minutes ago, vegas492 said: Since when is being a fan, short for FANATIC supposed to be intellectual? I mean, come on, how many posts does Norm have? He freely admits to not knowing all that much, but he does see things and understands things and has merit when he speaks...as a fan of the Green Bay Packers. (Norm, just picking you out because you never claim to be "in the know". And...I picked you because I know you can take it.) And absolutely none of that has anything to do with the DVOA metric. A metric that you, and I, as (somewhat) educated people have to take as gospel (or fact) because the creators of said metric will not disclose their formula for the creation of the metric. And still, I'll give you a "like" for your response as I appreciate the back and forth with you. Always have. It is okay to disagree. And...you deserve one for quoting someone born in Russia speaking about the American culture. I prefer intellectual fanatics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 44 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Always hated this quote. Seemingly always see it used as a blind defense of somebody with a doctorate protesting (sometimes valid) criticism of a statement. Always found the climate and concussion examples as very poor, as though the initial science into both of those wasn't rough in the extreme and didn't arguably do more harm than good in public belief. Don't hate the playa, hate the game I can see how some could inappropriately use this as an appeal to authority fallacy, but would argue that usage would inherently violate the spirit of the quote anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 15 minutes ago, incognito_man said: I agree completely. I also will bust in people if they ignore reality to substitute their eye test (without VERY convincing reasoning). Certainly the eye test and common sense deserve inclusion when obviously applicable. Like making judgements on GBs offense when Rodgers isn't playing or something. But pretty much otherwise in comparison debates, unbiased metrics are vastly superior than the eye test. I would have said I thought our defense looked better too. Probably because I wanted it too, and there are a couple guys who look like studs. But upon closer inspection...the overall product isn't better yet. I wouldn't argue with someone who thinks the defense looks like it is heading in the right direction, however. I agree we have flashed on that side a few times and put together some good stretches and have a few nice pieces. Actually, I view most of your comments in this forum in the context of the scientific method! You present an idea/opinion, back it up with something rational, accept feedback and criticism, and debate others in a similar fashion. Several folks here do, and this forum is kinda like an unconventional science experiment, where many opinions - sometimes represented strongly as fact - are heavily debated in many contexts (subtle, heated, passionate, argumentative). In my work, I've watched many a scientific debate play out in a similar, but much more formal manner. Scientists I work with are sometimes temperamental, often argumentative, and very passionate about their theories. The biggest difference between this forum and a scientific one is what evolves from the process. Our level of peer-review in this forum is much more abridged and loosely organized. Like you, I tend to lean more towards intellectual commentary, but I try and hear all sides because some of my greatest learning moments have come from the least likely of posters here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, vegas492 said: So....Are Sasquatch real? Given that awesome post....I have to ask! Much like Santa Claus, I prefer to believe! That being said, as technology and science (particularly in the human genome arena and DNA testing) evolve, I think we'll find new species being discovered that were previously overlooked for lack of evidence, or a proper way to test the evidence. I mean, new species are being discovered as we speak (mostly small micro-organisms) but it's exciting to think that there are larger, bi-pedal species out there among us. That's the little kid in me talking - until there's evidence, I remain skeptical that we'll make this discovery in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrid Josher Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 I vageuly recall reading some years ago that defenses typically show their biggest improvement in the first year of getting a new defensive coordinator. Unfortunately I can't find that study anymore through googling, so I was hoping someone here might be able to provide a similar article that looks at that premise of when you expect defenses to peak under a new DC. (Maybe I got it wrong and it's year two or three)? If we can get an answer on that it might have a bearing on how we judge Pettine's performance so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 "kudos to Pettine for finding a way to keep his defense competitive and somehow tied for fourth in sacks even though his pass rush based on talent almost surely ranks in the bottom quarter of the league." https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2018/12/10/packers-analysis-mixing-and-matching-keeps-defense-competitive/2269657002/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopackgo27 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 8 hours ago, incognito_man said: I understand everyone wants to see that our defense is better and that Pettine is better than Capers. I do too. But in average, our defense hasnt been this year. Our defense has had moments of looking better, which is promising - but the overall product hasn't been. Dems da facts. That just ain't completely true. Tied for 4th in Sacks, 2nd in Sack %. Highest YPA, Comp %, Passer Rating in 3 years. Are there are areas where we are worse? Sure, our Run D hasn't been great & we need to generate more turnovers but this Defense looks 10x better than anything Capers has trotted out there recently. We've also been decimated by injuries. How many miscommunications & breakdowns did Capers Defenses have? How many times did he only have 10 guys on the field? How many guys came out basically saying they didn't love the scheme? How many guys played better AFTER they left Capers Defense? Teams literally knew what Capers Defenses were going to do (see Cam Newton vs Clay), I love the way Pettine disguises his blitzes/coverages, always keeping the other team guessing. Seems to be a lot of interest out there in Capers too huh? We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 2 hours ago, incognito_man said: I can see how some could inappropriately use this as an appeal to authority fallacy but would argue that usage would inherently violate the spirit of the quote anyway. Definition of terms: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.