[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]chillain wrote:
First off, the inclusion of Stu had everything to do with exposure to natural BB’s and the amounts of “lean mass” they typically carry (ie. his empirical expertise), and literally nothing to do with scientific theory. Try and keep up.[/quote]
How would that matter if we are discussing the guys that would never be winning bodybuilding comps because they don’t fit the ideal structure?
Please explain.[/quote]
Actually, the fact that you’ve introduced a FAR MORE RESTRICTIVE criterion – and one with FAR less accumulated data – means no actual SCIENCE-based discussion can even take place. We’re all back to the realm of speculation here and while anecdotal evidence certainly has its place – and that’s really all u have to support ur stance – that’s really all we’re doing. (nor can any amount of caps-locking can change that fact)
[quote]Yes, I understand your criticisms of Butt’s method and conclusions. But here’s the thing u seem to miss: it was still worthy of being pubished! Of course there’s always room for critical analysis and down-the-road modifications in light of that, this is how science progresses. (note how are back to the context of SCIENCE)
Wow. It being published doesn’t mean it is right or even true. Holy crap at the thinking process.
There were studies published that “proved” that steroids don’t work.[/quote]
Wow. No one claimed it need be even right or true, it’s merely one attempt at “explaining the data” and it’s well-accepted that there’s room for other attempts. Holy crap at the closed-mind/self-affirming thinking process that is actually in direct opposition to the spirit of scientific inquiry in the first place!
[quote]But you seem to think that dismissive derision of a particular study imposes a dead-end on that particular line of inquiry. Again, that is not how SCIENCE proceeds and it also completely misses Butt’s contribution for what it was: a good starting-point that (likely) utilized the only available data at the time.
Regardless of what you want to call it, all it is is a list of measurements.
By excluding even looking at the issues I wrote about it makes it invalid for anything beyond that.[/quote]
Right, that’s all I claimed it was and also that the issues you raised were noteworthy. Even the author would agree with that, so why point this out?
[quote](And while it’s nice of you to draw attention to aspects that are worthy of criticism, believe it or not graduate-level students over a range of disciplines (not just SCIENCE, mind you) also do this everyday)
Then grow up and argue the topic and not me…and please quit the nonsense that I have to be on some “level” to question Stu.
He’s an english teacher. He could apparently learn something about this topic himself.[/quote]
Do not confuse me with your regular dissenters. I’ve already explained exactly why I took issue with your attempted dismissal of Stu – his expertise within the context of natural BB is far superior to yours – and that you’re (again) straying from this to bring in Stu’s personal life is, ironically enough, childish. Grow up Prof and stick to what I’m saying, it’s been very clearly spelled out for you.
edit - trying to fix this formatting so its readable