FanGraphs Audio: The Complete Dave Cameron
November 28, 2011
Episode 104
Managing Editor Dave Cameron discusses not only the trade of John Jaso to the Mariners from the Rays in exchange for reliever Josh Lueke, and also the firing of Ed Wade, but also takes an analytical — and yet still decidedly personal — look at his illness and subsequent treatment.
Don’t hesitate to direct pod-related correspondence to @cistulli on Twitter.
You can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or other feeder things.
Audio after the jump. (Approximately 30 min. play time.)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
Whoa, Dave is religious? File that under “things I wouldn’t have guessed.”
Why is that?
If I may take a crack, it’s because Dave is an analytic and these types are often associated with skepticism of religion. I’ve found it to have less correlation with intelligence than upbringing.
The critical thinking skills applied to baseball not being applied to religion.
The critical thinking skills applied to baseball not being applied to religion.
This is absurd Jason. I have yet to find a concept in my religion (Roman Catholic) that does not have a logical explaination. The nearest to conflicting logic I’ve found is free will.
A lot of arguments I have seen against religion have one of two errors. 1. Thinking religion and science conflict (usually involves a faulty assumption about a religious event or principle). 2. The logical flaw that lacking proof of existance is the same as proof of nonexistance.
Dan, I would agree upbringing is likely the largest factor in whether someone is religious.
Anon: Not that this is the forum, but as a former Roman Catholic, I could not disagree with you more.
“The logical flaw that lacking proof of existance is the same as proof of nonexistance.”
You can’t disprove that a gorilla on the moon created man with a magical banana either. That doesn’t mean you should think it’s true. There’s no point in trying to disprove something for which no evidence exists in the first place.