满分argument范文赏析--宾夕法尼亚大学Lai Jiang同学对Nature上暗示叶诗文服用兴奋剂文章的评论

xiaoxiaotd

看了这篇文章，才深深的体会到一篇有理有据有节的argument所带来的强大震撼效果。推荐给广大G友，以供大家学习借鉴。

在此向University of Pennsylvania的Lai Jiang 同志致敬（虽然Nature小编因为抵挡不住压力关闭了评论功能，但你的评论却永远活在人民心中）

Lai Jiang said： It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself, regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context, which they failed to do blatantly.
First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's 400m IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an "anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous personal best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 2010¹. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec between the age of 15 and 16². For regular people including the author it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not imagine it is real" is hardly sound.
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example of what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first 300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use one's best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.
Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)³ and Ye (28.93 sec)⁴: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science works.
Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree, and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let�s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it be?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-competition drug test is already in effect, which the author failed to mention. Per WADA presidentââ?¬â?¢s press release⁵, drug testing for olympians began at least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That maybe the reason that ââ?¬Å“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testingââ?¬Â?? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.
Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.
¹http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
²http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
³http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
⁴http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
⁵http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference


译文：【转自果壳】
http://www.guokr.com/post/301062/
包括我在内的几乎所有科学工作者都认为nature是业界最有影响最具威望的自然科学杂志之一，但我很遗憾地看到它竟然会发表这样一篇几乎毫无掩饰的偏见文章。诚然，这篇文章没有同行评审，没有挑剔的评委把关；但作为公众接触科学、理解科学的渠道，作者和编辑起码应该向读者提供正确的事实和恰当的上下文，而他们显然没做到。

首先，为了比较选手成绩提升幅度，作者把叶诗文的400米混合泳成绩和她2011年游泳世锦赛上的成绩相比，分别是4:28.43 和 4:35.15 ，由此认为她的成绩“异常”提升了大约7秒（6.72秒）。但事实上，她之前的个人最好成绩是在2010亚运会[1]的4:33.79。换言之，成绩提升了5.38秒。游泳可是一项0.1秒都意味着金银牌区别的项目，我觉得这里5.38秒不应等同为7秒。

其次，正如先前有人指出的，叶诗文只有16岁，身体仍在发育。在两年内把成绩提高5秒对于成年选手来说也许看似不可能，但对青少年肯定是可以的。伊安·索普的采访表明，他的400米自由泳成绩在15-16岁之间提高了5秒[2]。一般人（包括作者）可能很难想象顶尖的游泳选手逐渐成年时（辅以科学和刻苦的训练）能达到什么样的高度。但是因为觉得“这太难了，无法想象这是真的”就认定这样的成绩是“异常”，这可不是好的论证。

第三，将叶诗文和罗切特的最后50米对比，这是典型的“有目的的选取数据（cherry pick）”行为。的确，罗切特在最后50米比叶诗文慢，但如Zhenxi之前所言，罗切特在前300米已遥遥领先，所以他选择了不全力以赴来为之后的比赛节约能量。（这是否符合奥林匹克精神呢？算不算违背了“尽全力在比赛中取胜”的要求呢？国际羽联刚刚因此取消了4对羽毛球选手的参赛资格。这个问题也很值得讨论，不过大概不是在nature上吧。）相反，叶诗文前300米一直尾随，而最后是靠她擅长的自由泳获胜的。不指明这样的战略区别，也不提及罗切特总成绩比叶诗文快了23.25秒(4:05.18)，会让读者产生错觉，以为一位女性在同一项赛事里比最优秀的男性还快（听起来的确不可能）。且不说其中的性别问题，我认为这样的论述是在暗示读者”其中有鬼“。

第四，另一个“有目的的选取数据”的例子。同一场比赛中还有四名男运动员在最后50米比罗切特(29.10 s)[3]和叶诗文(28.93 s)[4]都快：萩野 (28.52 s), 菲尔普斯 (28.44 s),堀畑(27.87 s) 和弗雷泽-霍姆斯 (28.35 s)。看起来，仅仅对比400米混合泳最后50米的成绩时，如果我是作者我不会用罗切特作例子。本文作者在他的论述里展示了怎样的科学严谨性呢？莫非因为罗切特是冠军，我们就应假定他每段赛程都最快吗？要想向公众展示科学如何运作的话，这可是个相当糟糕的办法。

第五，我最为反对的一点。作者引用了Tucks 的话，暗示药检不能排除使用违禁药物的可能。这种不可知论真的是nature希望教给读者的东西吗？要按这样的标准，我估计nature发表过的一半同行审核过的论文都要撤回。难道有人能说服编辑和审稿者，让他们相信某个理论在所有可想象的场合下都成立呢？不可能的。论文作者只能把他的理论应用在典型的实例上，向审稿人表明，在所有考察过的场景下，这个理论都还过得去（希望如此）。而这就可以满足发表的要求了——直到人们发现反例为止。我能想象，作者是有怀疑精神的，这对科学思考至关重要。但是他本应当把这样的精神用在更好的地方，比如写篇真正经过同行评审的文章，基于数据和理性推导，讨论叶诗文有多大可能使用了某种高度先进、极难发现的兴奋剂，而这兴奋剂是中国人在过去四年里发明的（四年前北京奥运会他们显然还没有这东西，不然怎么不在主场使用、让自家观众欢呼呢？）。可是这篇文章给人的印象是，所有运动员都在使用违禁药品，只是管理机构还没本事抓住他们。逻辑上说，这是可能的；但是就算国际泳联为此举行上诉听证会，这篇文章也是不能说明什么问题的。问“是否可能在药检中出现假阴性”在我看来是个有问题的质疑。且不说针对某些药物的检验手段可能还没有诞生，任何上过量子物理入门课程的人都知道“世间万物的本质都是概率性的”，没准就在做药检的那一瞬间，所有药物成分都从运动员的血液里隧穿出去了呢。虽说是小概率，但我们是否就该因此无视所有的药检结果呢？现实点，讲讲理吧。请承认国际反兴奋剂机构能合格完成工作。还有，叶诗文的尿样在赛后要存上8年等待技术进步。不是说无罪推定吗？

第六，我要说最后一点，赛外药检已经开始实行了，作者却没提及。根据国际反兴奋剂机构主席在新闻发布会上的声明[5]，奥运选手从赛前6个月就开始接受例行药检，而且已有107名运动员因为违禁药品被禁止参加此次奥运会。这也许才是“人人都能通过奥运会的药检，几乎没人是在奥运期间被查出使用禁药”的真正原因吧？因为用药的已经被处罚了。作者自然有权提出质疑：一个选手赛前用药、赛时停药而骗过药检，但是这种可能性在叶身上已经可以排除了。

总体来说，尽管作者没有伪造任何数据，但是我认为他的确（无论是否故意）“有目的的选取了数据”，使得文章过于暗示性，绝非“公正无偏”。如果要从科学角度报道一个使用禁药嫌疑的故事，请不要有所偏差和片面，请提供全部的事实，让读者去评判。你有权保留你对事实的解读，也可以在你的文章中表达出来，隐晦还是明显都没有关系；但是只提供对你有利的证据，这恐怕不是好的科学，也不是好的新闻写作。nature这样的期刊上出现这样的文章，这不是科学研究或者科学报道的好例子。

AC007

哈哈哈楼主好快。。。

雅克

已经认真阅读，并学习了，哈哈哈哈！