ESPN suspends Keith Law

[Spanky__99]

I have a lot of conflicted feelings about Keith Law. He's a genuinely interesting guy with very similar interests to mine but his arrogance is often just too much. Frequently, he comes off like a more educated Wilner, more knowledgeable but with the same tendency for condescension. Like Wilner, he's been a very negative influence on Andrew Stoeten (who I used to like). I've stopped following all three because I just couldn't stand their s***** attitudes. All that being said, this is an incredibly dumb suspension from the loathsome suits at ESPN. Curt Shilling's idiotic beliefs about evolution shouldn't go unchallenged because he's a jock. That's f***in' dumb. Law probably wished he took that Astros job now.

 

We mutually agree on this, they used to be tolerable, now, not so much. Makes your skin crawl at times.

[glory]

I stopped listening to Law awhile after the Halladay trade. He went on 590 saying how great prospects were...Wallace was going to hit well at Rogers because he hit at every level including college. Drabek was going to be backbone of staff for a decade, TDA was top catcher prospect, so far ahead there wasn't a distant second. Well, TDA wasn't even as good as Gomes, Wallace couldn't hit major league pitching, Drabek blew his arm out, again. Yep, Law knows what he is talking about...

 

I will never forget Law saying that Zach Stewart had a front of the rotation upside when most people knew he was destined for the pen even when he was a top prospect (and he even failed at that).

 

If Law says something about a prospect, I usually expect the opposite. When he called Devon Travis a non-prospect, I was thrilled.

[KingKat]

I will never forget Law saying that Zach Stewart had a front of the rotation upside when most people knew he was destined for the pen even when he was a top prospect (and he even failed at that).

 

If Law says something about a prospect, I usually expect the opposite. When he called Devon Travis a non-prospect, I was thrilled.

 

He was very right about Kyle Drabek being garbage but yeah his track record is full of mistakes, most notably Brett Wallace.

[TwistedLogic]

Law gives the Jays exposure as well, not much difference in that regard, all 3 of them do, plus others on a smaller scale of course, fangraphs. etc...

 

Except Law is a bit of a ****, and on top of that, almost all of his useful-ish content is pushed behind a paywall through ESPN Insider, so a lot of what he says isn't appreciated or even read by most people.

[Spanky__99]

Except Law is a bit of a ****, and on top of that, almost all of his useful-ish content is pushed behind a paywall through ESPN Insider, so a lot of what he says isn't appreciated or even read by most people.

 

True, good point.

[RealAccountant]

You're actually wrong here. That we are a product of evolution is fact, the theory relates the the "how". As in "evolution by natural selection". The "natural selection" part is the theory (and a damn strong theory it is, scientifically speaking...)

 

reference. I meant we as sentient beings not we as in our physical self. I am okay with you saying I am wrong, but I would like it if you actually referenced so that I can see the source myself. Unless of course your source is your own opinion.

[Deadpool]

reference. I meant we as sentient beings not we as in our physical self. I am okay with you saying I am wrong, but I would like it if you actually referenced so that I can see the source myself. Unless of course your source is your own opinion.

 

The chemicals in our brains that create "sentience" are the result of evolution. Evolution has occurred, it is what brought us from single celled organisms to people arguing over the value of fWAR on a magical box.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#Fact (yeah, I know, citing Wikipedia, but this isn't a term paper...)

 

"Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact. The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

 

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact."

 

...

 

"[stephen Jay] Gould also points out that "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution."

[RealAccountant]

The chemicals in our brains that create "sentience" are the result of evolution. Evolution has occurred, it is what brought us from single celled organisms to people arguing over the value of fWAR on a magical box.

 

That is actually incorrect, and science has maintained the position that biological and chemical reactions in our brain do not necessarily reflect subjective mindset. Overwhelmingly so that the same reactions can be created and transferred from one being to another yet not produce the same.

 

Until such time that Science can explain the exact relationship between subjective mental states and brain states, the nature of the relationship between the conscious mind and the electro-chemical interactions in the body, it cannot claim that we are a product of evolution. The explanation must be exact and the evidence must not be circumstantial.

 

``Selection for physical reproductive fitness may have resulted in the appearance of organisms that are in fact conscious, and that have the observable variety of different specific kinds of consciousness but there is no physical explanation of why this is so-nor any other kind of explanation that we know of. To make facts of this kind intelligible, a postmaterialist theory would have to offer a unified explanation of how the physical and the mental characteristics of organisms developed together, and it would have to do so not just by adding a clause to the effect that the mental comes along with the physical as a bonus. Explanation, unlike causation, is not just of an event, but of an event under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely that an event of that type occured.``

 

``The problem is that evolutionary theory is not necessarily a complete and deterministic equation. Saying that some feature of an organism has appeared due to biological evolution is one thing, saying that it was certain or highly probable to appear is another thing. ```

 

http://blog.brainfacts.org/2013/03/can-science-explain-consciousness/#.VHEdOYvF_7E

 

The above is the best article I have read on consciousness and evolution in my life.

 

Its one thing to say that evolution is a process is a fact, however please do not apply it where ever you want and whatever you want to be. Problem is that you guys make evolution itself a religion and defend it no different then the Muslims defend their Allah. Until such time that Science can fully explain consciousness and create it themselves, it should not claim to understand human beings as a product of evolution. Most scientist don`t. They reserve their opinions until more facts come out, and don`t say things like we are a product of chemicals in our brain......

[o2cui2i]

This is the dumbest thing I ever heard of.

 

you need to get out more... lol

[Deadpool]

That is actually incorrect, and science has maintained the position that biological and chemical reactions in our brain do not necessarily reflect subjective mindset. Overwhelmingly so that the same reactions can be created and transferred from one being to another yet not produce the same.

 

Until such time that Science can explain the exact relationship between subjective mental states and brain states, the nature of the relationship between the conscious mind and the electro-chemical interactions in the body, it cannot claim that we are a product of evolution. The explanation must be exact and the evidence must not be circumstantial.

 

Nope. You don't have to know everything in order to know anything. Scientists are working on the issue (see: http://www.livescience.com/47096-theories-seek-to-explain-consciousness.html for some promising recent theories).

 

``Selection for physical reproductive fitness may have resulted in the appearance of organisms that are in fact conscious, and that have the observable variety of different specific kinds of consciousness but there is no physical explanation of why this is so-nor any other kind of explanation that we know of. To make facts of this kind intelligible, a postmaterialist theory would have to offer a unified explanation of how the physical and the mental characteristics of organisms developed together, and it would have to do so not just by adding a clause to the effect that the mental comes along with the physical as a bonus. Explanation, unlike causation, is not just of an event, but of an event under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely that an event of that type occured.``

 

``The problem is that evolutionary theory is not necessarily a complete and deterministic equation. Saying that some feature of an organism has appeared due to biological evolution is one thing, saying that it was certain or highly probable to appear is another thing. ```

 

http://blog.brainfacts.org/2013/03/can-science-explain-consciousness/#.VHEdOYvF_7E

 

The above is the best article I have read on consciousness and evolution in my life.

 

The article you posted there basically contradicts the point you're trying to make. The author of that blog is disputing the findings of a book, and in fact says near the conclusion of his post "There is in fact no reason to believe that our mental faculties cannot be explained by an evolutionary process – a biological and physical one."

 

Its one thing to say that evolution is a process is a fact, however please do not apply it where ever you want and whatever you want to be. Problem is that you guys make evolution itself a religion and defend it no different then the Muslims defend their Allah. Until such time that Science can fully explain consciousness and create it themselves, it should not claim to understand human beings as a product of evolution. Most scientist don`t. They reserve their opinions until more facts come out, and don`t say things like we are a product of chemicals in our brain......

 

First of all, seriously? You're going to drag the whole "evolution is a religion" trope out? No. This is not a thing, never was a thing, and never will be a thing. Religions are centred around beliefs, science (in this case, evolution) is centred around facts. Defending a fact is very, very different from defending a book.

 

Secondly, enough facts are in that there's an entire field called Neuroscience (alternatively, Cognitive Science looks at many of these issues as well). The facts off the matter are that we have a bunch of chemicals and neurons doing their business up in our heads, and every time we learn more about one of those chemicals or neurons, we learn more about how the brain functions. You're descending into a "god in the gaps" argument, and that gap gets smaller and smaller every day.

[o2cui2i]

something wrong in the world when the forum is arguing creationism vs evolution.....

 

 

Come AA, save us from this hell.... do something so the conversation can turn.

[intentional wok]

Regardless of what one thinks of Keith Law, we should (need to, actually) all agree that ESPN's conduct is completely and utterly contemptible.

 

First of all, seriously? You're going to drag the whole "evolution is a religion" trope out? No. This is not a thing, never was a thing, and never will be a thing. Religions are centred around beliefs, science (in this case, evolution) is centred around facts. Defending a fact is very, very different from defending a book.

 

Secondly, enough facts are in that there's an entire field called Neuroscience (alternatively, Cognitive Science looks at many of these issues as well). The facts off the matter are that we have a bunch of chemicals and neurons doing their business up in our heads, and every time we learn more about one of those chemicals or neurons, we learn more about how the brain functions. You're descending into a "god in the gaps" argument, and that gap gets smaller and smaller every day.

 

Just to add a bit here...

 

The natural (and wrong) counter-argument to your first point is that faith in science is the same as faith in religious claims, since the non-scientists have no choice but to take the experts' word on everything. This is not true, since scientists and their peers publish their findings and explain their methods. And whether a scientific conclusion is contradicted or its evidence rendered obsolete later on is irrelevant - one follows demonstrable and measurable facts where they lead. For non-scientists who must believe in what experts say in order to stay educated, the "faith" this hinges on is distinct because of the understanding that new discoveries can and will change previous understanding, and that abandoning old conclusions is frequently necessary. It's simply a failing of our language that "faith" is such an all-purpose word that it can be stapled to any concept to demonstrate equivalency.

[RealAccountant]

^ When did I say religion was the answer. No where in my replies I have pitted evolution vs. religion. However you assumed I did, because instead of reading my replies, you are more interested in replying as quickly as possible. This isn't religion vs. evolution. This is about Evolution is not all there, and so many people are covering up the holes with their desire to bring down religion.

 

As I mentioned until such time that there is absolute evidence, Evolution is not the answer. you cant be half wet. So if you ever get there, bring it to the table. If not don't talk about Neuroscience with me.

[Flashman]

^ When did I say religion was the answer. No where in my replies I have pitted evolution vs. religion. However you assumed I did, because instead of reading my replies, you are more interested in replying as quickly as possible. This isn't religion vs. evolution. This is about Evolution is not all there, and so many people are covering up the holes with their desire to bring down religion.

 

As I mentioned until such time that there is absolute evidence, Evolution is not the answer. you cant be half wet. So if you ever get there, bring it to the table. If not don't talk about Neuroscience with me.

 

'Half-wet'? There are mountains and mountains of evidence. There is nothing half-baked about it; it's a complete theory. What holes can you pick in it?

 

May I suggest watching

on YouTube? It concerns the intelligent design vs evolution court case in America, where IDers wanted to change what was on the education curriculum. It was on the evolution supporters to convince the Bush-appointed judge that evolution was, indeed, slam-dunk science.

[TheHurl]

For the 6 people who will understand

 

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gYNUOkqzcVA/maxresdefault.jpg

[intentional wok]

^ When did I say religion was the answer. No where in my replies I have pitted evolution vs. religion. However you assumed I did, because instead of reading my replies, you are more interested in replying as quickly as possible. This isn't religion vs. evolution. This is about Evolution is not all there, and so many people are covering up the holes with their desire to bring down religion.

 

As I mentioned until such time that there is absolute evidence, Evolution is not the answer. you cant be half wet. So if you ever get there, bring it to the table. If not don't talk about Neuroscience with me.

 

If you didn't pit evolution subscribers and the religious against one another, you certainly equated them:

 

Its one thing to say that evolution is a process is a fact, however please do not apply it where ever you want and whatever you want to be. Problem is that you guys make evolution itself a religion and defend it no different then the Muslims defend their Allah. Until such time that Science can fully explain consciousness and create it themselves, it should not claim to understand human beings as a product of evolution. Most scientist don`t. They reserve their opinions until more facts come out, and don`t say things like we are a product of chemicals in our brain......

 

There is ample evidence for claims of evolution and if neuroscience hasn't solved the entirety of the brain, there's still no reason at this moment to think that the undiscovered answer is the result of a different process than the one that governs all of nature. The claim that evolution subscribers are no different than Muslims (why just Muslims by the way?) is where you are completely wrong. I read your post, understood it, and responded carefully.

[Deadpool]

As I mentioned until such time that there is absolute evidence, Evolution is not the answer. you cant be half wet. So if you ever get there, bring it to the table. If not don't talk about Neuroscience with me.

 

This is an incredibly, incredibly dumb response. But if you want to keep on believing that there's "more to life than what we can see", go right ahead. It won't make you correct, but if the best you've got is "you can't say anything until you can say everything" then you've got nothing to contribute to any discussion.

 

Oh, and for the record, there is "absolute evidence", an abundance of it, in fact.

[RealAccountant]

This is an incredibly, incredibly dumb response. But if you want to keep on believing that there's "more to life than what we can see", go right ahead. It won't make you correct, but if the best you've got is "you can't say anything until you can say everything" then you've got nothing to contribute to any discussion.

 

Oh, and for the record, there is "absolute evidence", an abundance of it, in fact.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[intentional wok]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

 

Yes it is.

[Deadpool]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

 

There is no absence of evidence though, there's TONNES of evidence, all of which points to evolution as the source of "consciousness".

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[TheHurl]

I missed this, he gave a big f*** you to ESPN in his first tweet back.

 

[KingKat]

I missed this, he gave a big f*** you to ESPN in his first tweet back.

 

 

Lol. Law gets on my tits but that was well played.

[intentional wok]

I think I saw him post an Insider on the Donaldson move the other day.

[spats]

KLaw is too smart for ESPN...not one of their vanilla lackeys.

[Deadpool]

hilarious reading people lambasting schilling when he is just voicing an opinion

 

many non favourable opinions have existed and have been true, get off your high horses evolution is just that A THEORY

 

its not testable at the moment in the sense that it is 100% true, we still lack lots of evidence along the way to claim one or the other

 

You are quite dumb and should stop associating with people. Best that you find a dark cave somewhere so you don't get your stupid all over others.

[Boxcar]

For the 6 people who will understand

 

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gYNUOkqzcVA/maxresdefault.jpg

 

I feel special

[Flashman]

hilarious reading people lambasting schilling when he is just voicing an opinion

 

many non favourable opinions have existed and have been true, get off your high horses evolution is just that A THEORY

 

its not testable at the moment in the sense that it is 100% true, we still lack lots of evidence along the way to claim one or the other

 

Please watch, it's only a few minutes: