On what basis do you think a non-expert can criticize the findings of a scientist and it be reliable?
On the basis of noticing errors in their approach, same as we do with everyone else. Scientists aren't some magical beings who are beyond reproach.
If everyone did as you suggest, the advancement of human knowledge would have been greatly held back over the centuries as people bowed down to self-proclaimed experts whose ideas seemed out of step with reality.
Could you take ANY headline that reports findings of any scientist and believe you have adequate understanding to criticize the results?
No, but you can
sometimes identify the errors of scientists by looking at their clear statements and scientific publications.
On what basis do you suggest the scientist who did the study is the naive one? How would you improve the study to be more reliable?
Because we can look at all of the evidence we have, not simply limit ourselves to a single study, with clear limitations conducted by someone with limited experience in the field.
(I am operating under the assumption that you accept that some PEDs work and provide significant performance advantages)
Firstly, then where would you expect to find the world's premier experts on the effects of performance enhancing drugs?
A scientist trying to jump through ethical hurdles to conduct a limited study? Or the scientists like Ferrari and Fuentes (or their counterparts in other sports) with decades of real world experience with dozens of elite athletes and access to masses more data? Also note that these people have the ability to test EPO in conjunction with other drugs to improve the effects.
Given the attention to detail in the preparation of elite athletes, why should we assume, as the article author does, that these people are naive and know less than him about PEDs?
Who would you put money on being better informed?
Secondly, real world performance. In multiple athletic disciplines distance performances rocketed in the EPO era, before calming down a bit after EPO testing became available.
Third, all kinds of anecdotal data from people involved in pro-sport who talk about massive performance gains from using EPO.
Fourth, we know that some drugs work and that pro-athletes will basically experiment with anything to get an advantage. The idea that EPO was simply a placebo is much less likely when the same cyclist was taking EPO, testosterone, steroids, blood doping, etc. as well.
Fifth, we know from experience that magical mid-career transformations by elite athletes (Armstrong, Froome, etc) are more likely to be the result of cheating than be actual magical mid-career transformations. It was clear that LA was doping at the time he was winning, which required that some of his PED cocktail to actually be providing real benefits.
Sixth, we know that the person who is winning in a dirty strength/endurance sport is more likely to be dirty than clean as the margins between elite athletes are so small that the benefits of PEDs are greater than natural variations between the elites (see Flo-Jo's women's 100m world record from the steroid era for example). This impact is not simply placebo.
On their own, none of these points are definitive (although a few are
very indicative). They are not independent of each other though, so the probabilities compound.
Taken together they offer far better evidence of the performance benefits of EPO than one, small limited study conducted on non-elite athletes.
When lab-based scientific studies don't seem to match real world realities, we should certainly be sceptical as to whether they are accurate.
How would you improve the study to be more reliable?
It's more the conclusions being overstated/insufficiently qualified.
Saying EPO doesn't work gets you the attention. It is mildly qualified in the paper, but not very much, and the quote from the lead scientist was expressing a high degree of certainty.
Saying EPO doesn't seem to work in these settings, but that means we are probably missing something and need to identify what that is doesn't make you as many headlines but is much better science.
If you are riding the coattails of experts in science and THEIR opinions, then that is a different scenario than what you have presented: a lay person reading findings and opposing them for non-expert reasons.
No. I'm talking about a lay person opposing them for non-expert reasons. The idea that only an expert can ever spot a mistake seems to be the opposite of critical thinking.
Have you really never noticed a mistake by an expert in a field you are not an expert in? I can't believe that.
