That’s actually what is happening here. Rather than a ‘gut feeling’ about human performance, someone/several people decided to try to model it with the best available information. If it’s wrong, the next step is to prove why it’s wrong and get a new ‘best approximation’.
The next step is not to throw it all out because it doesn’t sound plausible.
What’s happening here is single sentence from the conclusion of paper with the explanation and caveats removed is being cherry picked by another author who then uses it to pretend it means what he thinks it means and make spurious arguments. Pointing at the paper and exclaiming “Science!” isn’t a defense. The paper posits human anatomy and physiology that does not exist to reach their speed. It’s scarcely different than referencing a paper pointing out humans would swim faster if only they had flippers.
That’s actually what is happening here. Rather than a ‘gut feeling’ about human performance, someone/several people decided to try to model it with the best available information. If it’s wrong, the next step is to prove why it’s wrong and get a new ‘best approximation’.
The next step is not to throw it all out because it doesn’t sound plausible.
What’s happening here is single sentence from the conclusion of paper with the explanation and caveats removed is being cherry picked by another author who then uses it to pretend it means what he thinks it means and make spurious arguments. Pointing at the paper and exclaiming “Science!” isn’t a defense. The paper posits human anatomy and physiology that does not exist to reach their speed. It’s scarcely different than referencing a paper pointing out humans would swim faster if only they had flippers.