Now on ScienceBlogs: Friday Sprog Blogging: science fair questions.

Uncertain Principles

Physics, Politics, Pop Culture

Search

Profile

sm_cover_draft_atom.jpgYou've read the blog, now try the book: How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is published by Scribner, and available wherever books are sold.

"Uncertain Principles" features the miscellaneous ramblings of a physicist at a small liberal arts college. Physics, politics, pop culture, and occasional conversations with his dog.

Chad Orzel "Prof. Orzel gives the impression of an everyday guy who just happens to have a vast but hidden knowledge of physics." (anonymous student evaluation comment)

Emmy, the Queen of Niskayuna Emmy is a German Shepherd mix, and the Queen of Niskayuna. She likes treats, walks, chasing bunnies, and quantum physics.

Donors Choose challenge link

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Greatest Hits

Chateau Steelypips

Blogroll

Scientists

Academics

Interesting People

Books

Punditry

Categories

Archives

« Links for 2009-12-08 | Main | How to Teach Physics to Other People's Dogs »

David Stern, Eliot Spitzer, and Bernie Madoff

Category: BasketballPoliticsSocietySports
Posted on: December 8, 2009 8:53 AM, by Chad Orzel

... walk into a bar. No, wait, that's not what I want...

In the interval before this morning's Mike and Mike show became the Tiger Woods Scandal Hour, they were talking about Tim Donaghy and his allegations about the NBA, which basically amount to the league being just a few steps up from the WWE. Mike Greenberg in particular kept blasting these rumors as completely outlandish because the sort of game-fixing Donaghy alleges would be blatantly illegal, and if it was exposed, people would go to jail. "These are wealthy and powerful people," he said, more or less, "You're crazy if you think they'd risk jail to get an extra game in the Kings-Lakers series."

While Donaghy is very likely full of crap, this is a terrible counter-argument, for the reasons alluded to in the title. Eliot Spitzer was a wealthy and powerful man, and you'd be crazy to think he would be frequenting $5,000/hour prostitutes while Governor of New York. And yet... Bernie Madoff was a wealthy and successful businessman, and you'd be crazy to think he was running a massive Ponzi scheme. And yet...

To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, it would be difficult to go broke underestimating the arrogant stupidity of wealthy and powerful men.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/126674

Comments

1

You raise an interesting point about Madoff & Spitzer! And what about some of the blatent missed calls in football? My general sceptisim and main point about conspiracy theories is that I just hate like hell to give in to the Dan Brown / Tea Party crowd.

Posted by: J-Dog | December 8, 2009 9:13 AM

2

Bernie Madoff was a wealthy and successful businessman, and you'd be crazy to think he was running a massive Ponzi scheme. And yet...

Madoff was able to get away with what he was doing for as long as he did in part because of this very factor. I don't recall the exact timeline, but people were on record several years (perhaps a full decade) before the news came out that Madoff's dealings were fraudulent. The SEC did a whitewash investigation or two. The prosecutors only got their case when Madoff himself admitted the fraud.

Wealth and power can be every bit as addictive as alcohol or gambling. For that matter, so can the thrill of getting away with something.

Posted by: Eric Lund | December 8, 2009 9:42 AM

3

Tiger Woods enjoyed somebody else's putting greens. He is in arrears for greens fees. What is the big deal?

Posted by: Uncle Al | December 8, 2009 2:34 PM

4

It's a poor argument because rich and powerful men do not go to jail in this country (Madoff went to jail because his wealth was exposed as a lie).

NBA rule #1 - The degree to which the rest of the rules apply to an individual or team is in inverse proportion to the amount of merchandise that individual or team sells.

Posted by: mingfrommongo | December 8, 2009 3:16 PM

5

I assume you watch basketball on TV. I found his observations perfectly plausible, and immediately wondered if the sabremetric folks include the referee assignments in their database. If not, a bit of retrospective analysis would show the bias he alleges. After all, beating the spread consistently at the 80% level is pretty strong evidence that there is something to look for.

Posted by: CCPhysicist | December 8, 2009 7:15 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Collective Imagination
Enter to win the daily giveaway
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.