|
|
其中的一位高人，有如下反驳强文：
Lai Jiang said:
It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including
myself, regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical
science magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this.
Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go
through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the
general populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors
and editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper
context, which they failed to do blatantly.
First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's
400m IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4
:28.43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got
an "anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous
personal best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This leads to a 5.38 sec
increase. In a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the
gold and silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body
is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem
impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian
Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec
between the age of 15 and 162. For regular people including the author it
may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she
matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a
conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not
imagine it is real" is hardly sound.
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example
of what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in
the last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the
first 300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy
for latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use
one's best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently
invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing
, probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind
after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win
the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact
that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the
illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which
sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a
leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.
Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are
four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (
28.93 sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec)
and Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about
the last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if
I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is
trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion,
we should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to
teach the public how science works.
Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and
implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By
that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate
that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree,
and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I
could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to
scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a
real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly
advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4
years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use
it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation.
This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever
a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if
it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question
to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed
to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an
athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let
?￠a??a?￠s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its
job. Her urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for
future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn
't it be?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
competition drug test is already in effect, which the author failed to
mention. Per WADA president?￠a??a?￠s press release5, drug testing for
olympians began at least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic
. Furthermore there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for
doping. That maybe the reason that ?￠a???“everyone will pass at the
Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?￠a????? Because
those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free to suggest
that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at the game, but
this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.
Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (
intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair
and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected
doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the
facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of
the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise
, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good
science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an
appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.
1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.ph ... per&Itemid=1241
2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3http://www.london2012.com/swimmi ... wm054100/index.html
4http://www.london2012.com/swimmi ... ww054100/index.html
5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/new ... 12-press-conference
|
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
楼主