[XZero771679666304]

Post script> Maybe prove is the wrong word. From now on let's use the word demonstrate.

 

Again, if a physcial thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

 

What about something that is proven to exist recently? We couldn't see atoms and such in the 1800s, and therefore couldn't measure or prove their existence, so what does that mean when we did discover them?

 

That is a good question.

 

I think that is where things get a bit cofusing to some. There is a difference between the technological ability to measure something. For instance, atoms were hypothosized to exist long before the invetion of the the atom smasher. Scientists hypothosized that atoms could be discovered through measurement.

 

But on the other hand, let us look at something like "team chemistry" What is it? In order for it to exist it must be measurable independent of its definition.

 

Now if someone wants to argue that it is an intagible or something that defies measurement go right ahead.

 

However, if something is said to exist that BY DEFINITION CANNOT BE MEASURED, well then it does not exist. Again, it is a logical imposiblilty to demonstrate that something does not exists and by extension disprove that something exists. One can only demonstrate that something does exist. I know of no way to demonstrate that "team chemistry" exists or more importantly, is an important variable to a winning team.

 

If anyone believes that someithing exists in such a state, it is a belief that is beyond the bounds of sicence. Becuse science is my business and a large part of my life, I choose to believe it does not exist

 

Ok, I talked to my physics professor last night and he said that in his opinion you could make a very strong case that if something cannot be measured it doesn't exist. But he qualified that by saying that our understanding of the laws of physics have changed somewhat over the years (ie classical-relativistic-quantum), and in probability may change again, so it would not be a totally conclusive case. He said that statements such as "something cannot be measured" or "something cannot exist" can be made, but should be qualified by saying something like "....cannot be measured by the laws of physics as we understand them today".

 

For the record, my professor got his Ph.D. from Stanford at age 23 in 1968, working under a Nobel Prize winner, so he isn't some hack scientist.

[Careless]

Just heard some tidbits on the score and Hendry was talking about the signing and he had to say that he signe dhim because Rusch is a very good clubhouse guy and also, there were nto many options available out there that could do his role. What a bunch of crock. So let's go out there and sign the best cluibhouse guys..World Series here we come. What a crock.

 

Has he learned nothing from last off season? Chemistry is such overrated garbage.

 

Tell the 05 White Sox, 04 Red Sox, 03 Marlins, 02 Angels and the 96-2000 Yankees that.

 

why? do you know for a fact that they had great 'chemistry'?

 

The empirical evidence suggests they got along well, which helped their performance as a team.

 

um...sure.

 

and this year's cub team supposedly got along great (or so empirical evidence suggests), and they sucked big time.

 

They didn't have the talent to compliment the camaraderie.

 

great self-sealing argument.

(pst, ask him if he knows what "empirical" actually means)

 

yes. i have an mpa.

Then you shouldn't be using "empirical" as its own antonym. Shame on you.

[CubfaninCA]

careless???

 

empirical evidence is an often used term.

[Careless]

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? It more or less boils down to the fact that nothing can be proved.

 

 

I suppose I could ask you the same question, but I will try not to insult your intelligence. Be that as it may, you are absolutely unequivally and tottally incorrect.

 

Part of the scientific method includes the practice of objective observation and measurement. For example, some scientist a long, long time ago in a country far, far away discovered that water boils at 100 degrees C or 210 degrees F at sea level. Get a thermometer and try it yourself. If you go to a higher altitude it will even boil at a lower temp. I guess one could say that science has disproved that water boils at any other temp besides 100, but then again that is an ass backwards way to look at things, isn't it?

 

Science is fun

----------------

Post script> Maybe prove is the wrong word. From now on let's use the word demonstrate.

 

Again, if a physcial thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

He's completely correct, nothing is ever proven by science. Only math and logic have proofs.

Science by definition never proves, only suggests (and disproves)

Edited November 3, 2005 by Careless

[Careless]

careless???

 

empirical evidence is an often used term.

Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym

To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical.

[tgk]

Chemistry is often overrated because it's a good story. They tell us how the guys are a band of brothers who hang out together and whose wives organize social functions that include everyone's kids. . . and we eat it up.

It is, by and large, an overrated element to winning, but it is an element.

 

Have you ever had a job where the boss was a real jerk, you couldn't stand some of the people you worked with and you didn't fell like you could talk to anyone because everyone was out for themselves? I have, and let me tell you, it isn't a lot of fun. You don't like going to work and it is harder to do your job well because of the tension.

 

Conversely, If you work in an environment where everyone gets along, you have monthly potlucks and you play together on the company softball team it helps you keep a positive attitude.

 

Now, having a positive attitude does not mean you're a good worker, and being in a tense, negative environment doesn't automatically mean you can't perform your job well. But I think the vast majority of us would find it easier to be productive employees in a "Good Chemistry" company. I know I would.

 

The same holds true for teams. Chemistry isn't essential, but it is a plus.

[UBlink]

I think this thread has gotten esoteric enough to weed out the riff raff. So now we're going to see who has studied under the most Nobel prize winners (once or twice removed)?

[CubinNY]

 

The same holds true for teams. Chemistry isn't essential, but it is a plus.

 

a plus for what? Certianly not for winning.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think this thread has gotten esoteric enough to weed out the riff raff. So now we're going to see who has studied under the most Nobel prize winners (once or twice removed)?

 

Look who's talking Mr. esoteric. :wink:

 

 

Another point on chemistry. I've played on competitive baseball teams where I didn't like many of the players on the team. When we were winning, I never had a problem with anyone, and we'd joke around and stuff and everything was great. When things weren't going so well, let's just say that people were less congenial towards everyone, friend or foe. Winning breeds "chemistry".

[abuck1220]

Just heard some tidbits on the score and Hendry was talking about the signing and he had to say that he signe dhim because Rusch is a very good clubhouse guy and also, there were nto many options available out there that could do his role. What a bunch of crock. So let's go out there and sign the best cluibhouse guys..World Series here we come. What a crock.

 

Has he learned nothing from last off season? Chemistry is such overrated garbage.

 

Tell the 05 White Sox, 04 Red Sox, 03 Marlins, 02 Angels and the 96-2000 Yankees that.

 

why? do you know for a fact that they had great 'chemistry'?

 

The empirical evidence suggests they got along well, which helped their performance as a team.

 

um...sure.

 

and this year's cub team supposedly got along great (or so empirical evidence suggests), and they sucked big time.

 

They didn't have the talent to compliment the camaraderie.

 

great self-sealing argument.

(pst, ask him if he knows what "empirical" actually means)

 

yes. i have an mpa.

 

then you should realize how ridiculous your original argument was.

[CubinNY]

Carless,

 

I suppose you are correct in the sense that I suggest the Earth spins on it's axis.

 

:D

 

On a more serious note: The term suggest is much too weak. Science demonstrates and repeated replications verify; failures to replicate falsify. To say that science merely suggest plays right into the hands of the ID folks.

[CubfaninCA]

careless???

 

empirical evidence is an often used term.

Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym

To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical.

 

I was talking about 10 years of baseball. Observation by various sources backs up that chemistry was existent and mattered somewhat w/ most of the title winners.

[CubfaninCA]

buck, what's ridiculous??

 

If it's disagreeing w/ people who typically strike a condescending tone, then perhaps you have something. :)

[CubinNY]

careless???

 

empirical evidence is an often used term.

Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym

To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical.

 

Observation by various sources backs up that chemistry was existent and mattered somewhat w/ most of the title winners.

 

Who? What sources? When?

 

Before we go any further down this dark, dark road, please for the love of Isac Newton define what chemistry is and how one could possibly measure it?

[Careless]

careless???

 

empirical evidence is an often used term.

Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym

To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical.

 

I was talking about 10 years of baseball. Observation by various sources backs up that chemistry was existent and mattered somewhat w/ most of the title winners.

And yet, there was not a single repetition involved. Completely non-empirical.

And there is no objective way of saying anything that could have been observed showed chemistry to be a deciding factor, but that's going back to the start of the thread.

[swordsman]

(swordsman sneaks into the conversation and rolls in a grenade...)

 

You can't measure what makes something pornography either, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

(swordsman slinks out and runs for cover.)

[CubinNY]

(swordsman sneaks into the conversation and rolls in a grenade...)

 

You can't measure what makes something pornography either, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

(swordsman slinks out and runs for cover.)

 

pornography is completely irrelivent. Pornography is a value judgement.

 

Frankly, I find this thread pornographic.

[abuck1220]

buck, what's ridiculous??

 

If it's disagreeing w/ people who typically strike a condescending tone, then perhaps you have something. :)

 

there you go with your 'me against the world' stuff again...

 

anyway, your argument was that chemistry is important to winning. for some reason, you cited to past ws winners and said that they had good chemistry. thus, chemistry is important in winning. your 'argument' is unbeatable because all anyone can say is 'the white sox didn't have good chemistry' or 'they didn't win because they had good chemistry' and you'll say 'prove it'...which, obviously, is impossible to do. of course, this ignores the fact that you can't prove that they did have good chemistry or that this is why they won. thus, your argument is beyond weak. in fact, i hesitate to call it an argument.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

[MPrior]

Carless,

 

I suppose you are correct in the sense that I suggest the Earth spins on it's axis.

 

:D

 

On a more serious note: The term suggest is much too weak. Science demonstrates and repeated replications verify; failures to replicate falsify. To say that science merely suggest plays right into the hands of the ID folks.

 

Exactly; it demonstrates and verifies, but doesn't prove; failures falsify, or disprove. In reference to your boiling point example, it has not been proven that water boils at 100 degrees at sea level. It has merely been demonstrated to reliably do so. However, there very well may arise some situation in which water does not boil at 100 degrees at sea level, which would effectively disprove that notion. We just haven't found such a situation yet, so we say that it boils at 100 degrees because it's currently the most accurate and reliable working theorem.

[CubfaninCA]

careless???

 

empirical evidence is an often used term.

Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym

To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical.

 

I was talking about 10 years of baseball. Observation by various sources backs up that chemistry was existent and mattered somewhat w/ most of the title winners.

And yet, there was not a single repetition involved. Completely non-empirical.

And there is no objective way of saying anything that could have been observed showed chemistry to be a deciding factor, but that's going back to the start of the thread.

 

they got along, they got hits when they needed them, they won titles.

[CubfaninCA]

buck, what's ridiculous??

 

If it's disagreeing w/ people who typically strike a condescending tone, then perhaps you have something. :)

 

there you go with your 'me against the world' stuff again...

 

anyway, your argument was that chemistry is important to winning. for some reason, you cited to past ws winners and said that they had good chemistry. thus, chemistry is important in winning. your 'argument' is unbeatable because all anyone can say is 'the white sox didn't have good chemistry' or 'they didn't win because they had good chemistry' and you'll say 'prove it'...which, obviously, is impossible to do. of course, this ignores the fact that you can't prove that they did have good chemistry or that this is why they won. thus, your argument is beyond weak. in fact, i hesitate to call it an argument.

 

Pretty anti-intellectucal argument there.

 

There we're tied up in condescending remarks. :)

[abuck1220]

you're still ahead in crappy arguments though.

[Careless]

We just haven't found such a situation yet, so we say that it boils at 100 degrees because it's currently the most accurate and reliable working theorem.

Yes, we have. Not sure exactly what pressure (I assume 1 bar) 100 degrees is, but changing air pressure will change the boiling point.

:twisted:

[CubfaninCA]

Once again, no one can answer with precision whether the teams had good chemistry because they won or won because of good chemistry.

 

Are losing teams bad because they don't have chemistry? No, ususally they are bad because they lack talent. And just because you find a bunch of players that really like each other doesn't mean you'll put a winner on the field.

 

Secondly, I find it entirely impossible to build a team for "chemistry." Just because someone was well-liked by one group of people doesn't mean he will similarly be well-liked by another.

 

You build teams according to talent and hope the chemistry is there. Teams can win on talent without chemistry. I doubt you'll see many win on chemistry alone.

 

True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..