Quote:
Originally Posted by Piers
To risk stating the obvious, "It depends on the numbers".
How does the product of the first two compare with the third?
1. Odds that a particular individual is a world class player: 1 in 100,000,000
2. Odds that a particular individual has HGH deficiency:
The incidence of idiopathic GHD in infants is about 1 in every 3800 live births
3. Odds that GHD treatment in these individuals confers athletic superpowers in an otherwise normal individual: 1 in 10,000+ I would say
#1 is irrelevant.
#2 is 1 in 3800
#3 is 1 in 10,000
Therefore it is far more likely than not that GHD treatment for GHD deficiency is not the reason that this man is a world class player.
What is wrong with the above analysis? I see no reason whatsoever that this should be a product of two rare events. To see that, imagine GHD treated individuals were 1 in 2 rather than 1 in 3800.
I think Sklansky is not needed here. This is a straight comparison:
1. What are the odds that GHD treatment increases athletic prowess in adults? High.
2. What are the odds that this guy is still taking GHD treatment as an adult (high?).
3. What are the odds that GHD treatment is helping him perform at a world-class level (high).
I don't see a need for Special Sklansky Theories.