Add new comment

Bear in mind that I started D-O-V and SSI precisely so that we could have one place not suffocated by arrogance and elitism.   The "no evidence to believe X" -- "show it to me on BP" -- intellectual censorship just won't fly here.
.......................
In the Phil 101 classroom, we consistently endorse logical paradigms that we absolutely don't use in real life.  We say we believe in them, but we don't.
In the Phil 101 classroom, a guy will swear up and down that we have no way to know whether matter really exists.  But I notice that he asks me to pass the butter at the lunch table.  I usually tell him I have no way to tell what he's talking about.
.....................
Some things I believe, and some things I don't.  Scott Peterson got sent to jail because 12 people were sure he killed his wife.  "ENSURING" that it happened?  Nobody cares about the last 0.001% of proof.
.......................
Saber-tistas don't *logically* claim that it is *theoretically impossible* for them to be wrong, no.  But a few of them do a blinkin' good job of sneering at everybody who disagrees with them on the Wednesday post.
........................
Consider me as uncharitable as you like Ted.  :- )  I've been bearing the insufferable arrogance and overconfidence -- such as the early PAP diatribes by BP, just to name one -- for years and years.
For me to opine that I think Jarrod Washburn is having a career year, and for my good bud to tell me I'm stupid ;- ) because sabermetrics has proven that doesn't happen, that's an INADVERTENT case in point.  Sabermetrics hasn't proven that!  It has furnished an interesting general principle which is one part of the discussion.
The believe that sabermetrics has -- for all intents and purposes -- ruled out Washburn's having a career year, that is a PRIME example of lack of respect for the limitations of our understandings.
..............................
You use that "there's no evidence to believe" paradigm that I battle against constantly.  Sabermetricians implicitly think that if it's not the consensus among Huckabay, Jayzerli, Law & Co., that we don't have any right to believe it.
Aside from the fact that we haven't read comprehensively enough to know that "there's no evidence" on something...
It implies our own firm conviction that sabermetrics has surrounded any subject at hand and put "paid" to the search for wisdom.  This is arrogant and it is usually incorrect.
It mirrors the academic's belief that he has 998 of 1,000 light bulbs on, and that he is the arbiter of what positions are justified.  He'll tell you that if it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal (THT, BP, whatever), that it's stupid to believe it. 
I won't stand for it.  I started D-O-V and SSI precisely so that we could have one place not smothered by "Does Gary Huckabay believe this?  Where is it on BP?" elitism.
You consider virtually all published sabermetricians to be well-judged, humble and open-minded.  Don't let me dissuade you.  Enjoy your reading, my man.