A couple of great pictures - science and exercise

(Alastair Dryburgh via Daniel Pink)

The first image is a lovely representation of the growing evidence of the value of behavioural prompts for physical activity.

I like the second image partly because it is just funny!  And partly as it hints at a world where the sane and the reasonable cause as much fuss as the crazies.

(thanks to Prof Glynis Murphy, via Dr Jen Leigh)

You have read this article physical activity / Richard Bailey / science / sport. / sports / truth sport education research veriphobia with the title science. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2012/02/a-couple-of-great-pictures-science-and.html. Thanks!

Where Am I? a little more about philosophy and sport

Imagine that you are approached by scientists  to go on a secret mission to disarm a nuclear devise.  The mission is very risky to your brain, but not your body.  So the clever/ mad scientists have figured out a way of sending your body on the mission whilst leaving your brain behind in the laboratory.  You are a heroic sort of person, and agree to go on the mission.  Your brain is surgically removed from your body and placed in a vat, although the brain and body are still linked together via implants, transmitters and antennae.  Before you go to disarm the bomb your body sits down and stares at your brain in the vat.

Where are you?

Are you the brain in the vat?

Or the body in the chair?

Or wherever you think you are?

This story is the start of a thought experiment (an imaginative devise to test philosophical ideas) from Daniel Dennett (1978).  The full story becomes more complex as various twists and turns are introduced.  The whole time, Dennett is trying to work out where he really is.

Try reading the full account, either in his book ‘Brainstorms’, or on one of the many websites that reproduces it (such as: http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/WhereAmI.html).

Dennett’s experiment offers a particularly vivid example of one of the most persistent questions in philosophy: what does it mean to be human?  Are we primarily minds or bodies?  Where are we?

Why does this matter to those involved with sport pedagogy?  According to Margaret Talbot (2001, p. 40) it “is the only educational experience where the focus is on the body, physical activity and physical development”.  In other words, we who work in sport pedagogy need to think about our own understandings of the body because the body is the focus of our professional interest.  More importantly, as we will see shortly, we need to reflect on our assumptions about bodies because they will heavily influence the ways we approach the teaching and care of them.


So, where are you?

You have read this article bible / coaching / cognition / education / education sport / learning / philosophy / physical education / science with the title science. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2011/12/where-am-i-little-more-about-philosophy.html. Thanks!

Your opinions are worthless!

"Science tells you that your opinion is worthless when confronted with the evidence. That's a difficult thing to learn." (Prof. Brian Cox)

I came across this excellent quotation in a recent New Statesman interview with physicists Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.  It captures what is, for me, one of the essential features of the scientific mindset: humility.

And it stands in stark comparison with the default mindset of advocates of the otherwise varied collection of pseudo-scientific beliefs, like alternative medicine.

The world is complex and difficult to understand.  The idiosyncrasies of my personal beliefs are unlikely to grasp the truth of some matter.  But, by working within a community of committed colleagues, many of whom I have never and will never meet, and by using methods of testing that have been honed over many years, we might have a chance.

This attitude of humility is rare in our culture of relativism.  The view that everything is subjective, and that everyone's opinions are equally valid infuses many debates.  And while this stance might be valid in questions of value (Eastenders or Coronation Street? Clooney or Pitt?), it is absurd to think they apply to questions of knowledge.

Some things are true (or probably true) and others are not (or probably not).  Science is the most effective way we know of distinguishing between them. And it is not the opinions of individual scientists that determines what counts, but their theories' abilities to survive ruthless and repeated tests.  Scientific theories are those that have survived attempts to kill them.  They might die in the future, of course, but for now they are the best that we know.

An irony is that science is often portrayed as arrogant by its critics.  I have no shadow of a doubt that there are arrogant scientists; they are, on the whole, human.  But science is the epitome of self-effacing modesty.  It really does not matter what I think, or feel, or believe, or 'know' - science says - if this idea does not pass the test, it is out (or, at least, subject to serious reconsideration).

Compare this to the attitude of pseudoscience.  Alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, creationism, spiritualism, and countless other forms of intellectual diarrhoea with which are bombarded are different manifestations of a shared stance: my opinion is the ultimate arbiter.

The fundamental difference between scientifically minded and non-scientifically minded people is that the former think that personal opinions are irrelevant in the pursuit of truth; the latter think they are everything.

If a scientist defended his or her theory with the words 'I don't care what the evidence says, I disagree' he or she would be viewed as an idiot with an unhealthy value of their own importance.  But we hear sentiments like this from advocates of pseudoscience all of the time.  The world is full of people who think that tea, or sugar tablets, or laughter, or aura-tweaking, will cure life-threatening illnesses.  And the lack of evidence in support of their claims is irrelevant, because they know.

In alt-med world, anyone's precious opinions about, say, cancer treatment are as respectable as those of a Professor of Oncology.  Their arrogance is breath-taking as much as it is life-threatening.

So, I offer for your consideration and reflection the splendid quotation by Drs Cox and Forshaw.  Like science itself, it is a candle in the darkness.

You have read this article alternative medicine / bullshit / Darwin / education / myths / philosophy / postmodernism / Richard Bailey / science / truth / veriphobia with the title science. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2011/12/your-opinions-are-worthless.html. Thanks!

Sport Science - good, bad and bogus

The sport sciences have garnered a huge body of evidence regarding the measurement and improvement of performance. Television programmes reporting on the preparation of elite players for events like the 2012 Olympic Games show them in laboratories, where scientists in lab coats connect them to tubes and cables and the ubiquitous machines that go 'ping'.

The scientific foundations of modern training and measurement are simply taken for granted by those involved in sport. Personally, I am not so sure.

Dave Collins (formerly Performance Director at UK Athletics and now Professor at the University of Central Lancashire) and I have recently written a paper for the International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics called 'Scienciness' and the allure of second-hand strategy in talent identification and development. We argue that senior sports coaches and administrators are too quickly impressed by apparently 'sciency' looking strategies and practices which, on closer inspection, are really not very good science at all.

Of course, not all sport science is dodgy; the great majority is perfectly respectable. A problem, though, is that the people who actually use the research are rarely able to distinguish between good and bad science.

Without an understanding of science, most of us turn to good-old-fashioned common sense, which is probably a good bet most of the time, but occasionally is paradoxical and surprising and quite the opposite of common sense. And there are countless examples of bogus ideas in sport that seem common sensical; consider talent identification: the importance of spotting talent young; the need to identifying children with the correct body shape for specific sports; the necessity of focusing on one sport early. All of these ideas are widely believed to be true, because they seem like common sense. Yet they are all, more or less, nonsense.


One of the most fascinating examples of the battle between science and non-science is reported in Michael Lewis' Moneyball, which has just been released as a film starring .. [drum roll] .. Brad Pitt. The book / film focuses on Major League Baseball, possibly the most evidence-laden sport in the world, and its reliance on a combination of the wisdom of aged insiders and common sense-based, sciency statistics. According to Lewis, the statistics used by even the most elite teams to evaluate player success and, vitally, to identify the most talented recruits, were simply not relevant for the modern game.



Moneyball also tells of the remarkable success of the Oakland A's, a relatively poor team that somehow managed to compete successfully against much wealthier and established teams. Their secret? They used informed statistics to identify the real key predictors of playing success. So, while their opponents continued to assess players' potential and performance using common sense measures like batting averages, the A's turned to on-base percentages and slugging percentages. These scores were not only more valid predictors of playing success, but they also allowed the team to buy much more economically.

The events told in Moneyball took place some years ago, and the other Major League teams were forced to change, albeit reluctantly. It may be the new film will stimulate interest in the issue of good, bad and bogus sport science, and - who knows - perhaps it will contribute to the sport science education of coaches and administrators.

[A recent issue of the Financial Times has a fascinating discussion between Michael Lewis and Billy Beane, the man behind the A's statistical revolution]

You have read this article administration / baseball / bullshit / children / science / sport / talent development with the title science. You can bookmark this page URL http://say-sport.blogspot.com/2011/11/sport-science-good-bad-and-bogus.html. Thanks!