I know the answer, I just need to hear it... (Read 380 times)

 

I think my bigger challenge is finding a 10 mile race that isn't monstrously hilly, or run in mid-August :P

Not sure why the correlation but pretty accurate.  Always like Run Thru Hell (Hell, MI) but dang hilly.  A month later the Crim (Flint, MI) but typically a sweat sock and apparently drinking the water on the course is now a no-go.

 

 I am kind of into the science cause it helps me determine how I train and get faster.

 

I know the answer to this without getting into science.

 

I think my bigger challenge is finding a 10 mile race that isn't monstrously hilly, or run in mid-August :P

The first 10 miles of the New Bedford half is great. Problem is when you PR at the 10 mile mark, the next 3.1 kind of suck.

I love it when an epistemological squirmish breaks out. What does it mean to know something? Or to give a full explanation?

Stoshew claims that we don't really know anything until we've traced that knowledge back to fundamental physiology -- the Science.

Mikey claims that fundamental physiology is not the best criterion for knowledge in this case -- instead, it's the practical lived experience of runners and racers. This is referred to by Stoshew as "anecdote."

How to resolve this dispute? We look at the nature of the question: the criterion for what counts as an answer depends on the question that is being asked. In this case, we have a question about appropriate racing strategies. Have racing strategies ever been tested in a physiological laboratory? I am trying to imagine the physiological laboratory that can test racing strategies.

Here's an idea: you could have thousands of people over decades run races, and then measure their relative performance positive splitting, negative splitting, and running even splits under tons of different conditions. That sounds like a pretty good lab. We don't really need to know about what's going on inside of their bodies because the question at stake is a question of racing, not a question of physiology -- moving a body from A to B as quickly as possible. We just need a bunch of bodies and a start and finish line. A stopwatch would be nice. Maybe some fancy "chips" that we could tie to shoes.

Instead of scientists, who are prone to jargon that can sometimes impede inquiry outside their field, we could just give the job of analysis to those weird, old bone-legged, crow-eyed runners who seem to show up at each of these experiments.  This is their field after all. They could just watch over a few years, Try it themselves hundreds of times, talk to their friends, check out the race results, and then draw conclusions.

Maybe Stoshew is right -- maybe the scientific method is the best criterion for knowledge. He's just misidentified the correct laboratory for inquiring into the fact.

 

I think my bigger challenge is finding a 10 mile race that isn't monstrously hilly, or run in mid-August :P

Off the top of my head...

Old Fashioned 10 Miler in Foxboro. Flat, competitive, and in February.

Black Cat 10 Miler in Salem. Gently rolling, reasonably fast, sometimes competitive, and in March.

I love it when an epistemological squirmish breaks out. What does it mean to know something? Or to give a full explanation?

 

Stoshew claims that we don't really know anything until we've traced that knowledge back to fundamental physiology -- the Science.

 

Mikey claims that fundamental physiology is not the best criterion for knowledge in this case -- instead, it's the practical lived experience of runners and racers. This is referred to by Stoshew as "anecdote."

 

How to resolve this dispute? We look at the nature of the question: the criterion for what counts as an answer depends on the question that is being asked. In this case, we have a question about appropriate racing strategies. Have racing strategies ever been tested in a physiological laboratory? I am trying to imagine the physiological laboratory that can test racing strategies.

 

Here's an idea: you could have thousands of people over decades run races, and then measure their relative performance positive splitting, negative splitting, and running even splits under tons of different conditions. That sounds like a pretty good lab. We don't really need to know about what's going on inside of their bodies because the question at stake is a question of racing, not a question of physiology -- moving a body from A to B as quickly as possible. We just need a bunch of bodies and a start and finish line. A stopwatch would be nice. Maybe some fancy "chips" that we could tie to shoes.

 

Instead of scientists, who are prone to jargon that can sometimes impede inquiry outside their field, we could just give the job of analysis to those weird, old bone-legged, crow-eyed runners who seem to show up at each of these experiments.  This is their field after all. They could just watch over a few years, Try it themselves hundreds of times, talk to their friends, check out the race results, and then draw conclusions.

 

Maybe Stoshew is right -- maybe the scientific method is the best criterion for knowledge. He's just misidentified the correct laboratory for inquiring into the fact.

Smarts vs. wisdom?

karl knausgaard?