To what extent should we differentiate advances in the technology of sports from advances in optimizing human performance? That’s the question at the front and centre of this presentation by David Epstein. He suggests that because of this ignorance of unequal conditions, the record books are written as if the athletes alone were responsible for their performances. Is that fair?
Or perhaps that’s a false distinction; after all, unless you subscribe to fantastical notions of an ethereal human spirit, feats of athleticism are reducible to mental and physical process, which are themselves reducible to biochemistry and biomechanics. Are advances in running motions, running strategy and running shoes all equivalently valid contributions to the science of the sport? Upon what basis do we establish these sporting norms, and do they withstand philosophical scrutiny at any level?
And turning to competitive robotics, a sporting endeavour where the biological aspect is heavily downplayed, is there a different norm that treats technological advances as integral to the sport, instead of asterisks in the record books?