Re: More on rational deference
[ QUOTE ]
An example of what I am saying is this. A group of reknowned physicists put out a press release that if it is the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and there are no outs, it is CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER to go with two outfielders and one extra infielder.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you meant to hint at this, but one of the chapters of Moneyball speaks of a situation analogous to this. Twenty some years ago, Bill James did studies to determine what tactics lead to scoring runs, and "moving runners over" wasn't one of them. About 10 years ago AVM studies in baseball showed statistically that sacrafice bunting is almost always a hindrance towards scoring runs. Even though most Managers have seen this, most Managers still use the sacrafice bunt today. The reason for this is that "baseball people" came up with the idea of sacrafice bunting, and they aren't willing to just let it go. Similarly, one of the responses on this thread says they wouldn't trust a genius/physicist because they aren't a spiritual person. The truth is most people just do not want to believe mathematics and statistics can be right, while old knowledge in their field can be wrong.
|